A MIDNIGHT DISTURBANCE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14686, 20 November 1909, Page 14

A MIDNIGHT DISTURBANCE

A TRAINER'S HOUSE UNDER SIEGE.

Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., presided at the City l'ojice Court .yesterday, when James Piper was e'narged with drunkenness, breach of a prohibition order, and wilfully damaging a. window valu-.d at 7s 6d, the'property of floury Augustus Scott. itr Hay appeared tor accused, who pleaded " i\'ot guilty." Counsel for the detente admitted that accused was prohibited.

Henry A. Scott, raid he was a hoi'M dealer and trainer, aiid resided in Moray place. Un. tho night of the 6th inst,, abdut 11.30,'; witness was at home in bet, when someone rang the bell continuously. Witness, got up and .went to the iiindow, and saw ihi"e men,.whom he asked to leave tho bill alone.. Two oi the men wore straw.hats, and accused was wearing a cap. The ringing was continued for a while, and then witness threw a. basin of watvr on one cf the men. 'there was quietness for a. while, then accused said "Let's smash the window.'' Witness then saw accused throw a stone tlnough ono of the windows, not tho one at w'liich witness was standing, however. The nwn then burst in the door, and witness saw stones thrown at the door. Witness dressed himself, but a young lady in the house pcrsuaided them to go away. They ■roturned shortly, and witness heard one of '.them say, " Let's burst in again and smash things up." The young lady ■slipped out and wont to ine Police Station. Accused had had -drink enough to bo full of mischief. Accused was arrested. It was after 12 o'clock when the stone was thrown through the. window, Cross-examined: Witness lived in the house with his three children, his housekeeper, and her daug'nfer. Witness did not keep the house for bad purposes, and did not know that tho house was kept /or.bad purposes. Witness knew tho men <lid not como lo his homo by invitation. At the Police. Station one of the men staled that he went to the house at the invitation of the ''louso-kaepor's daughter. Witness knew accused. Witness admitted throwing two beer Dottles at the men.

Gladys Quran, who said her mother was housekeeper for the previous witness, gave corroborative evidence. The men told witness that they did not want 'her, but Scott, for throwing the water over ihem. Witness went to -the Policy Station for the police. Wilnas heard, accused say, " Let's break t'ne window.' 1 Witness did not invite the men to the house.

. Sergeant M.'Kcefvy also gava evidence. Accused stumbled in his walk and in his speech, and was drunk.—Sergeant O'Conncll deposed thai accused w»; in a liglhing siats of diuukcnikv-s. One of the throe young men said ho was invited to the liouso by Miss Quimi.—To Mr Hay: When Scott gave accused in charge lira latter said. ''Ask Scott what lie.did. lie tried to murder us." 'i'ho accused was in a state of drunkenness more or less. . Tha'e was no liquor in the possession of accused when he was arrested.

: Mr Hay said the: defence was that accused denied having broken the window, and said that the girl had invited them earlier in tho evening to como to '..he bouse. The fact of drunkenness was also denied, and tho defendant eaid that 'lie was excited and made angry by having the contonts of the bedroom basin thrown over him.

Percy M'oorc (who was with accused) 6aid he went thcite as the result of an invitation from a woman, (hough ha could not swear it was witness Quimi. Seott threw bottles at them. Accused was not drinking with 'him. Witness seemed to remember very little, and was not c\cn sure that he took his companions to the right house to which he was directed. Piper was sober. Mr Hay said he had decided not to call further evidence. Accused liad several previous coirvictions for dwinkenness, but had never been charged wiit'h anything involving dishonesty, in regard to the procuring part cf the charge, counsel 'contended that there had been no evidence brought iir support of this. The Sub-inspector: But ho was drunk. Mr.Hay: He was not found in possession either. Ho' had consumed it.

Sub-inspector: He was. The liquor was inside.

Mr vHay: How do you know what was inside? You're a bit of a prophet. You're like Sam Weller, you can see through (Laughter).

His Worship observed that the man's condition raise'd a (presumption that he had procured liquor.

Mr Hay: There is no authority. Only your Worship's opinion. He might have found a boltl® of whisky. The principle of : criminal Jaw was that presumptions we're, if anything! in favour of the accused. His Worship: I hold that there is prima facie evidence that ho procured liquor. Mr Hay: From some person? His Worship: Yes. Mr Hay. What if ho stole it? His Worship: Ho would procure it. Mr Hay: But from some persons? His Worship: If the liquor had an owner. The Sub-inspector: Let counsel prove that accused didn't procure. His Worship said ho would givo accused a chance. For drunkenness lie would bo convicted and discharged. As regarded procuring liquor he saw no reason to depart from tho opiirion lie had expressed. Ho did not decido on the exact point raised whether: thero was absolute proof. On this: offence accused would be'-fined ; £2'.'or'"'l4' days' imprisonment, and for damage he would likewise be fined £2 and ordered to pay damages (7s 6d), in default 14- days' imprisonment. He might say that he had rot much sympathy with Scott. If the windows had been those of a house which tho accused 'had no excuse for going to a much more severe penalty would have been inflicted. The Sub-inspector: How about witnesses' costs? His Worship refused to allow them.