SOMERSAULT ALLEGED

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11685, 24 November 1923, Page 5

SOMERSAULT ALLEGED

EVIDENCE CONTRADICTED BOARDERS, PORTER, AND BOOKING CLERK. INFORMATIONS DISMISSED. The complaint to a constable on duty in Lambion quay some time ago by a young man, George Smith, that he had been assaulted by the night porter at Barrett’s Hotel led to investigations by the police, with the result that Smith and a companion of liis, Edwin Russell, were proceeded against for being on licensed premise® after hours. The above proceedings consequently involved Ernest Amon Edward Buell and Alfred Robinson, all changed on two counts of supplying liquor after hours; and the licensee, Adam John Munro, who was charged with oellinc liquor after hours on two occasions; with opening the hotel after hours for the purpoee of the sale ' of liquor, and with exposing liquor for sale after hour®. Prosecution under the above charges was conducted before Mr E. Page, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. Mr P. I/evi appeared on behalf of the licensee, Mr C. A. L. Treadwell representing the two accused, Smith and Russell. Sub-Inspector Cummings prosecuted. ALLEGED ASSAULT. The facts as outlined by Constable Kilgour showed that Smith had intercepted him in the street, and alleged that he had been assaulted. Witness made hi® way to Barrett’s Hotel, and subsequently proceeded with inquiries ce regards the legality of Smith’s and Ruenell’s possession of tho liquor. A clerk in the hotel office, Margaret Musket, declared that she remembered seeing the two accused on the evening in question, but referred them to a second cleric coming on duty. This, however, called, from tho sub-inspector the fact that witness had made an entirely different statement to the police at the beginning. As an explanation the witness declared that she did not wish to be implicated in proceedings by sayirig nha had seen the men, and had therefore denied this. She new, however, admitted seeing them, and their asking for a room. ROOMS BOOKED. Louise McDonald, whose duties kept her at the hotel office 4 ' from 6.40 p.m. to 10 p.m., deposed to hairing entered the names of the accused in the book far the engagement of a room ovornight. Sub-Inspector Cummings: That is a complete somersault from her previous declarations. The sub-inspector then read witness’s first statement, which was to the effect that neither of tho accused had asked her to book -a room, and that on going to bed at ten o’clock their names were not in the hook. The sub-inspector: Why then did you 6ay this at first?—l was upset at tho | time. But, what was there to he upset about? Is your second statement, which coincides with the finst, also incorrect? —Yes. Who has been suggesting anything or discussing the matter with you?— No one. Were you in the witnesses* ’ room this morning with nnyone?—No. After further reflection, witness remarked that she had seen the two, defendants, Smith and Russell, in the rorttrl. Mr Treadwell: Mr Levi and myself were nlso there. Mr Treadwell impressed upon the witness the fact that she wae likely to be nent to gaol if found out in a lie whilst on oath. To counsed, witness declared that she was firm in tho statements from the box. The other two statements were not true. His Worship: When you made your finst statement did you believe it to be true?—Yes, I did. When did you alter your mind? Wae it after your employer had been proceeded against for selling?—No. Witness again declared to the bench that her mind was clear in respect to these declarations, her former statements as given to Sergeant O’Neill being untrue. She had put the names in the book in pencil, but bad accidentally rubbed them out later. Sergeant O’Neill declared that after taking the statements from the two previous witnesses ho had inquired some days later if there was any possibility of the names having been erased. They had replied there wae none whatever. “NO EVIDENCE ON WHICH TO CONVICT.” On Mr Treadwell proposing to call the defendant Smith, His Worship observed that it was unnecessary to proceed .with further evidence, as it appeared that on the eridenoe a conviction could not be entered. “The main feature in their defence is that one of these two men went to a police constable on duty and told him he had been assaulted. The evidence for the prosecution needs to establish the fact that they were not boarders there. There is no evidence before the court that they were unlawfully at the hotel. If the young women had .told Smith at the beginning these proceedings would not have been taken.’’