Untitled

Hokitika Guardian, 26 August 1929, Page 2

most gratify ins; proof that Murchison is not “down and out.” For many days now only a ferv very slight tremors have occurred, too few in number and too light in character to be worth mentioning at all, were it not seemingly necessary to allay the fears of a few*

constable’s .evidence. It was pecular that he had not called any of these friends to give evidence. He was convinced that defendant had not told the truth. He had been impressed by the constable’s evidence. Defendant would be convicted on the first charge. The hearing of the second charge was adjourned till the. afternoon in order to give defendant an opportunity to produce evidence. Constable Lockie was the police witness, thejevidencee being along the same lines as in the first case.

Under cross-examination by Mr Walton, witness said lie had never had 10. “ squash shandies ” in his life. He was not a drinking man; he only drank when he was compelled to in the course of liis duty.. Harry T Smith barman d ( f the Crown Hotyl, said lie had known defendant for about five years. The witness Lockie had had no drinks with anyone in the bar with the exception of the speaker. It was incorrect for Lockie to say that he had engaged in conversation with anyone except witness. The constable had never drunk anything other than long squash shandies. Witness had never seen a doubles chart produced by Munro in the Crown Hotel bar.

The Magistrate said defendant, and tne witness were friends. He would accept the prosecutor’s evidence as he had done in the first case. It was quite obvious that the witness Smith’s evidence was negligible. He could see Uo reason why the .constable, should commit deliberate perjury. .There was no possibility of the constable . having made a mistake in identification. The constable hpd given his evidence very clearly, and hnd not broken down under cross-examination. The defendant had a. good object in coming to the Court with the story which" he had related. Defendant would he convicted.

Mr Walton asked'that a light penalty be imposed,' aV ! defendant was out of work and'no means. Inspector Bird said that the-e was nothing known against the defendantapart from the present cases. Defendant, who was fined £2O on each charge, was allowed a fortnight in which to pay.