PERMITTING DRUNKENNESS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17064, 24 July 1917, Page 7

PERMITTING DRUNKENNESS

THE EOYAL A!LBERT HOTEL CASK CHANGE DISMISSED. Mr i. E. Bartholomew, S.M., gave his deomon yesterday in the oaso in which bliza Cahill was charged, on tho 9th inst with permitting drunkenness on the licensed Prnmjses of tho Royal Albert HoteL The Magistrate said that there was an oxtxaorchnary' conflict of evidence. The case for the prosecution' was that a man ofThf & /*"?" T* 8 in the bar H»™V« ™Jv drunk « nn « s « and convicted. Harris s condition was not in the present proceedings evidence of tho fact that ho was - drunk. lor proof tho prosecution relied upon the evidence of Constables Brockbank and Campbell, a civilian who was related to Brockbank, tho watchhousc-keepor, and Sergeant Thomson, ail of whom stated that tho man was drunk. For tho defence, there was the eynience of tho son of tho licensee tiu *"'' lu * men who wcro "* tho b*l- - the time, and two lads who were emplayed at a garage, all of whom deposed tnatHarris was sober. Tho evidence given by Campbell, and Brockbank's own admission, showed that he had no reason for entering the hotel. The. point involved was Brookbank's credibility. Brookbank took tho man from the bar into the passago and stated that whou,taken from the sup-' port of the wall ho could not stand. Campbell corroborated these statements. Sergeant Thomson, who eaw tho man in his cell, and spoke to him, and made him stand' up, said he was drunk, and was affected both physically and mentally. Tho evidence for the defence included -four outside witnesses. One of these professed great indignation, and accused. Brockbank of being drunk. He was a witness who protested too much, and his evidence could be dropped out. The other three were a returned soldier, a hairdresser, and a draper. Ihcsc,all appeared to be reputablo men, and then* evidence was not in. .ugned on cross-examination. All three swore that tho man was not drunk, and the same testimony was given by tho two: lads from the garage who seemed to be honest witnesses. The evidence of Allan (manager of the hotel) was peculiar in some particulars. He seemed to think that because tho man was a boarder in the hotel .he could not be arrested for drunkenness. There were charges made against the police upon which 0 , must es P r ess his opinion, although some of them were not relevant to the case. With respect to Sergeant Thomson, it was a perfectly proper thing for him to go into j cell and see and .speak to the prisoner and get him to stand up so as to determine' his.condition; but it was quite a wrohnposition for him to take a statement from the man. It had been clearly laid down by judges of the Supreme Court. that the police had no nght to interrogate a prisoner, and although the. charge was only ijne of drunkenness, the principle was a •wholesome and salutary one. It waa improper for the sergeant, to interview the man and tafee his statement before he was liberated. For the luture the police roust see that this wholesome and salutary rule was acted upon. Charges against Constable Brockbank of having abstracted money from the man's pockets were entirely unsupported, and the facts had only to be stated to carry their own condemnation. It' was not a genuine accusation, and, missing fire in the way it had dpne, it could only injure tho person who levelled it. Brockbank was entirely exculpated in this matter. It seemed strange that the man Harris had not been called Ho had boen a friend of the licensee from . has school days, and had stayed at the hotel after the affair. It might also be regarded as somewhat strange that Allan and the men who saw the arrest had not come along to. Ins rescue on the morning after I his, waa certainly matter for comment ; in -view of the evidence of these men, howover, and notwithstanding what might be said about tho probabilities to be inferred from the course of action, he could not say that tho police had satisfactorily discharged the onus of proof. Tie charge would theretore be dismissed. ■ ~ .