JOSEPH POWELKA RECAPTURED

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7077, 15 March 1910, Page 1

JOSEPH POWELKA RECAPTURED

BRIEF SPELL OP LIBERTY DID NOT KNOW WHERE HE WAS GOING. PBOH OUK OWN COB.BESPOKDENT. PALMERSTON, March 14. Joseph Powelka, against whom the.ro aro several charges of burglary, and who escaped from custody on Saturday, had a very short and not very sweet spell of liberty. He was recaptured this afternoon at Awahuri, in a very simple manner by Constables Barry and O'Sullivan. These two officers, in civilian clothing, were standing oa the verandah of tho Awahuri store at about half-past two when Powelka strolled past them iiii on aimless, wea.ry manner. They made after him. and he was handcuffed without resistance. Word was sent to Palmerston, a iniotor-car was dispatched, and the truant was under jlock and key within an hour. Ho appears to have had rather a harassing time. Early on Saturday night the police motor-car overtook him om tho road near Awa■puni, amd.it was only by looking, as unconcerned as possible that he escaped notice. He, then appears to have done exactly what tho police esIpeeted him to do—attempted to reach' his father's home ait Kimbolton. H© called at ttlle Bturnythoarpe store en route and got to Kimtbolton some time last night. However, ho abandoned his bicycle within. a few yards of his feather's homo and beat a (hasty retreat across-country on foot. Before being captured Hie must have walked bet/ween thirty and forty miles. In reply to a question Powelka said! he did not know where he was going. On returning to til© gaol he'was Drought -be-fore : Mr' ,'A:;■.' D. Tnomson, S.IL, and remanded to Wellington, where foe will he kept till the various charges aire formulated.

Wilson, and Chief Detective Broberg. The latter had known Cummings ' for about twenty-eight years and Williams foi about twelve yeais. Mr Yoanp You ha\e had a. Rood deal to do with racecourse work' Witness': Yes. Can cither of ih/> defendants be classed jfi undesirable's 0 Witness. Certainly iUK>f. Defendant Williams- said he had been employed by Letm and Co. for sixteen >ears, and was now of independent means. Ho had been champion rifle shot of the Dominion (in 1891), and had represented the Dominion at, Bisley in 1899. He had been a member of the Peildiffig Oockey Cinb. On January 24th ho went to Trmtham meeting, paying 2s entrance fee at the gate and lite to thelawn. Walden approached him in an apologetic way—.said he had unpleasant duty to perform. He did nob offer to return witness's entrance money. Witness had money invested on the fotalisator when asked to leave. On the third day Waldeni approached him and 6aid, " 1 hlave to do the s<ffie thinff again today." AVitness told him he would be better employed looking after the thieves and spielers. Walden. said he thought so, too. Mr Young.- The Miramar club .fe well patronised? . . ■ ■ - Witness: Extremely. ■ And byofficials of the Wellington Racing Club? Witness: The club was represented by its president once. He was entertained, and,was quite pleased at the manner,in which the meeting was conducted. Stewards of the club had also visited Mira--mair meetings and been entertained, and had been l very well satisfied. Mr Bell: What do you mean by being •entertained'? ; Witness: Oh! the usual thing. His Worship said the question was irrelevant. ,' . Mr Bell: But I am presuming, sir, it is ;meant to throw mud on the Wellington Eacins Club stewards. His Worship: Well, ask your question. To witness: Did you know that by the Rules of Racing you are disqualified from entering on a course? " Witness: I hadn't the slightest idea that that was the case. Croee-exammed by Mr Bell, witness said ho did not know that under the rules he was disqualified from going on the course. On the second day AValden and Detective Cassells spoke to him, but they never warned Kim off. He was warned at a previous meeting, 3&d nothing came of it. Mr Bell: Oh, then, you did know that you were not regarded as desirable? Witness: Yes. Conrinuin.g,' witness said that on the second day he personally saw one of the stewards (McDonald) and told him that Walden had ordered him off. McDonald told him to take no notice.

Mr Young submitted that, on the facts he was entitled to ask for a-dismissal. Tho i-esolution upon which the racing club relied, specified "boodimakere and other undesirables." Tho two defendants could not be classed as "undesirables.". They were officials of: a perfectly legitimate racing club, though it was true the club was not affiliated with the "swell" body. The actions arose out of petty jealousy on the part of the Wel-lington-Racing Club. The club desired to have all the racing to itself. The effect of the judgment in the - GrLegg case was that defendants did not become trespassers until tliey had been ordered off. Having become trespassers it was necessary that they should be ordered off a. second time. Bookmakers were prohibited by law from going on a course, and were trespassers as soon as they got ;n----s:klb the gate. Defendants were on a different footing, and the evidence showed that they had been warned off only once. The warning on the second day was not a new warning. In Begina v. r Price it had been held that the second day's ticket of admission constituted a new license.

Mr Bell submitted that the case hinged on the meaning of the word "undesirable." That was a matter between defendants and Walden. He held that it had been shown that both the club and Walden had understood the term to include such persons as defendants. That defendents were "undesirables" was shown bv Whyte's evidence. Legally a racing club was bound to eject them. If it was necessary that a warning be given before a person, became a trespasser, this was met by the circumstance that some argument took place between Walden and defendents after they were first warned. The fact of a person be-

inpr warned on one day brought him" within the same category, as far as a second day was concerned, as a perron Who had had prior notice of Tais exclusion. The defendants both kntew that they wore not allowed on the course. His Worship said that it appeared to him that it was necessary in the present cases that two warnings should be given. However, he would peruse the authorities quoted by counsel before giving a decision. His opinion at the pre,Rent time was in favour of the defendants. Judgment would be given on Friday.