KANE BROTHERS GET THE CANE

NZ Truth, Issue 1144, 3 November 1927, Page 6

KANE BROTHERS GET THE CANE

The Man In Grey

Blunt Questions

Two Lucky Stars They Can Thank For Their Freedom

"THEY HAD A VERY NARROW ESCAPE"

(From "N.Z. Truth's" Special Auckland Representative.)

TF ever man could be said to have one foot m gaol and the other out, it applied to Francis and Joseph Kane, two brothers, when they made their third appearance at the Auckland Police Court m connection with an affray that took place m Darby Street earlier m the week.

ON their first appearance before the court, Magistrate Hunt convicted them on charges of theft and assault. Sentence was deferred until police inquiries could be made as to their past behavior. For their present freedom they can thank two lucky stars — the one that had m the past kept their names out of the police record; the other that guided them to obtain the services of a solicitor before again facing the magistrate. As it was, they bad several days' experience of the hospitality of Mt. Eden gaol, the S.M. refusing ball. It was the quick perception of a young woman that was chiefly responsible for the arrest of the Kane brothers. With a friend, she was on her way from a Queen Street picture theatre about 10 p.m. on Monday, October 17, when her attention was attracted to a seene — not a stone's throw from Queen Street — that to her looked very much like a genuine case

of robbery and violence. , As a result, the two Kanes were charged with assaulting James

Henry Aisher and stealing three bottles of beer. A further charge of assaulting Stanley Sparks, the young man who intervened, was preferred against Francis Kane (21), the younger by three years. In a very capable manner, the girl told the court what she had seen. Her first impression of the scuffle was that someone was being robbed; one man was struggling between two others and she immediately prompted her escort to investigate. "Can you identify the two men m the dock?" asked Senior- Sergeant McCarthy, who was conducting the prosecution. The witness was quite sure that she recognized the "gentlemen" and pointed out the "one m the brown suit" — meaning Joseph — as the one who was "going through Alsher's pockets."

Describing what happened when her friend interfered: "The one m the grey suit," said witness, indicating Francis, "came up to my friend. Taking a bottle out of his pocket, he 'hit him as heavily as he possibly could on the side of the neck. "The one m the brown suit then came up and got the other man ' away and said he was sorry, but that his companion did not mean to hit him." The two Kanes had then run away and the girl's friend followed, subsequently calling police assistance. The elder of the brothers took the role of spokesman when it came to questioning the truth of some of the girl's statements. He was not particularly courteous m his manner of interrogation. Francis let drive the first angry query by disputing that he had struck Sparks with a bottle. "Why, I could beat a dozen like him . . . There's no need for me to use a bottle," was his contemptuous rejoinder as he receded into sullen silence. "Now, look here," commenced Joseph, stepping up to the front of the dock with a frown on his face. "Last night, when that thing happened, we gave the other man the cash to get the beer and he was taking it off with him.'' There followed a number of gruff questions, but the girl was equal to the test. Retaining her

ness, later, "something to that effect." Magistrate: "What about your money!" But witness had not lost any of his cash, which, he said, amounted to about £5. Asked if he had called for assistance, witness replied that he had "let a bit of a yelp out." As for injuries, he received a lump on the back of his head. Joseph put a few blunt questions before Aisher left the box and to the assertion' that they had only one drink together, tempestuously remarked: "Don't tell lies — you had four drinks. I shouted and then you beat it!" "Why didn't you tell the magistrate that you got the beer somewhere else?" continued the excited Joseph m his assertion that Aisher had been able to obtain the beer from the hotel porter on account of his "better, appearance."

The second victim and intended peace-maker gave corroborative evidence, defining the attack upon himself as "a vicious blow at the head," which he dodged and received on the side of the neck. Joseph lost his last ounce of control. "How the could it be a vicious blow if it missed?"

"Be quiet!" Ancl Kane withered before the stentorian voice of the seniorsergeant. Police evidence was given as to the condition of- the two men when arrested. They were both sober, said the constable, although there were signs of having had liquor. When informed of Aishcr's complaint to the police, the Kanes refuted it as "absolute rot." Statements made to the police by the two brothers were consistent with Joseph's cross-examination of the witnesses. They had given Aisher the money to obtain the beer. He had shown some reluctance m handing it over, so "like anyone else" they took it from him. Magistrate: "I convict them both. Now, senior-sergeant, what is known about them?" There was nothing on the police records against either of them and sentence was deferred until inquiries could be executed. Two days later the Kanes again graced the dock, but all SeniorSergeant McCarthy could say about them came from the opinion of the detective office. They had been knocking about the town and were classed as an "undesirable" type. Francis Kane had arrived m New Zealand from Lancashire In February, 1921, while his brother joined him a year later. The police asked for a severe penalty. It was then that the Kane brothers' second lucky star, m the form of Lawyer Schramm, cast the rays of his eloquence upon the bench. His clients, although "rough sort of fellows, are honest and straight and are supporting their widowed mother." "Curious to state," continued counsel, "Aisher happened to call at my office on the afternoon of the trouble and he was then decidedly under the influence of liquor." Magistrate: "Is not that the sort of man they would tackle?"

Counsel admitted that the scene of the disturbance would no doubt appear to a passer-by as a case of robbery, but the truth of the matter was precisely as his clients had stated it to the police.

composure, she gave no sign of weakness m her evidence. Joseph would not ihave it that Sparks

had been struck with a bottle. "Why, if he had been hit with a bottle he wouldn't be here now!" was his contention. • The row had started because Aisher had refused to hand over the beer and when Sparks interfered he was told to mind his own business. The idea of anyone being the recipient of a "vicious blow from a bottle" and then being: on deck the next day was too much for Joseph Kane and he showed it ln a very manifest manner by closing his crossexamination. James Henry Aisher, the victim of the assault, -was the next to take the witness-box. His story added a few details to that of the previous witness. He had gone with the two Kanes to a certain hotel for a drink and on coming out they were heading — on his Invitation — to a .restaurant for coffee. It was while passing along Darby Street that his companions assailed him, taking from his possession some beer that he had purchased before entering the hotel. One of the brothers pulled his coat over his shoulders, while the other withdrew the beer from his pocket. He heard one of them say: "Go through him — rat him!" or, said wit-

He asked that a remand be granted

to give him the op-

portunity to bring evidence as to the good characters of his clients and their diligency at work. Two witnesses were brought to court the following morning and testified to the characters of the Kanes. One, a ship's baker, stated that they were always well-behaved and everybody liked them. "I know one or two that don't," observed his worship. Counsel pursued his argument of th« previous day, when he maintained that the beer really did belong to the Kanes. "if they had adopted th* right course, Aisher would have been m the dock instead of them." "They've had a very narrow escape," remarked the S.M. "The fact that the police know nothing against them, together with the knowledge that they are supporting their mother, has gone m their favor; otherwise they would have got two months' gaol. "As far as I can see they pulled the man's coat over his shoulders for the purpose of going through his pockets. "They are fined £10 each for the assault, m default one month's imprisonment, and on the theft charge are convicted and ordered to come up for sentence when called upon. If they want to keep out of gaol they must mend their ways."