DISTURBANCE IN ARCADE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19964, 4 December 1926, Page 7

DISTURBANCE IN ARCADE.

1 HOW ADD CASE CONCLUDED. 1 EVIDENCE LARGELY UN- ; SUBSTANTIATED. 1 ' , CONVICTED OF BAD LANGUAGE. i Finality was reached in the City Police ye.teruay morning in tlie oujourueu case against vv niiam dames Howard, wno was ciiarged with having, on November It), wiltuliy damaged three confectionery jars, a quantity ot cliocoaies, and live tumblers, ol a total value ol J>2 10s, the property ot Vera Paterson, with having used obscene language and with having resisted Constaole Moore in the execution of lus duty. Ihe scene of tho trouble was in a fruitshop occupied by th© complainant in tho Arcade. Tho case was hoard by Mr H. W. Bundle. S.M.—Sub-inspector O’Plalloran prosecuted, and Mr A. C. Hanlon appeared for tho defendant. The police evidence was taiien on luesday Inst, and yesterday's proceedings started with Mr Hanlon's address to the court. Generally speaking, counsel said, the evidence bristled with contradictions, and he thought he might safely say it was brimful of lying. This could not be attributed to bona fide mistakes, but the statements were made for a purpose—to mislead the court and to cover up some dereliction on the part of each witness. As far as the damage was concerned, the shop woman said that the defendant had gone up to the goods and shoved them over twice. “That statement 1 discredit,” said Mr Hanlon. “because Barry says that what the man did was not intentional, and then be showed how. it did occur.” Mr Hanlon added that defendant’s story would be that he did not knock the articles down at all. The woman denied that. She tried to sell the 1 defendant onions though she admitted that he bought apples and lemons. The woman had said in her cross-examination that she did not have a large quantity of onions, but that was not true, because Barry had said that there was a discussion on onions and that there were more onions than defendant could carry away “even if he were sober.” “Then,” counsel proceeded, ‘the policeman was brought in, and, of course, with excessive oal, ho took the side.of the woman at once, and told the defendant that if he didn’t pay he would be put out. He had no right to do that, as it was only an argument. Finally, he says (hat ho ejected flho man at the request of the woman, but then neither of them had the right to cause him to be thrown out. Then the constable says that Howard made use of ohsence language, while Barry says that all the defendant aid was in a low voice, and to him. The constable, however, goes a step further bv saying that the language was used in an J ordinary tone of voice so that everyone I would hear. It simply shows tha) each witness is trying to say what suits himself host. I cross-examined all the witnesses on the story I could only have got from tho defendant, and there is not one thing that tho defendant told me that 1 was not able to extract from one or more of tho witnesses for the prosecution. Tho man is put out and he is supposed to have resisted the police. Tho constable has to try to make out that ho was arrested tor using obeence language, but that’s all nonsense of course. Again, the constable says that he was sent for, but Inter ho admits that ho was going through the Arcade when ho met a rrfan in the shop next door who told him that he was needed; and that,” Mr Hanlon said. is how he was sent for. If ho had been using obscene language would he not have been avested and taken away? The man said, ‘l’m going to report you,’ and ho walked to the Police Station, the constable following until he sees his friend Maynard on a bicycle and hails him. Maynard comes over and says, ‘What are you putting him in for?’ Most significant! Then I thought that that wasn’t the fact and I asked Mnvnnrd if he did not snv. ‘are vou I putting him in?’ and ho said, ‘vgs.’ That was (he first time Constable Moore put his hand on the man. Then when flier" were two of them they took him by the scruff of the neck and bent him to his knees and tore hie clothes and scratched his knees.

If they can do that sort of thing it's a sorry day for the police force and for uie public, and it should not be tolerated. The constable made a mistake in going into the shop and putting the man out and in not charging Him with drunkenness when they say he was drunk.” Howard, in evidence, said that he nad been working at Port Chalmers on the day the trouble had occurred, and before leaving by the 5.17 train he had had a glass of beer. In Dunedin he had two whiskies. After that he went home. Ho hud no more drink that day. About 7 o’clock he met a young lady and was in her company till about 10 o’clock, during which time they were shopping. He stood at the Grand Hotel corner for a while and then went up Princes street, through Mansg street and into the Arcade. He went into Mrs Paterson’s shop and bought 21b of apples and a shilling’s worth of lemons. That was about 11 o’clock. He was perfectly sober at the time. There was some talk of onions and the man Barry, who up till then had been sitting behind the counter with his head in his hands, stood up. Barry offered him a crate of onions at 265, but witness did not want a crate. There was a lot of talk about onions, and witness finally made them an offer of 18s, which was refused. He walked back to the counter to §ot his fruit. Then something dropped at the end of the counter, and the woman said, “Now look what you’ve done.” Witness said, ■'l’ve done nothing,’ and when the woman said that he would have to pay for the damage he said that he would pay for nothing he had not done There was a heated argument, and witness refused re peatedly to pay. He asked who the proprietor of the shop was, but could get no satisfaction. The policeman came and took sides with the other two, and demanded that witness should pay, threatening to arrest him if he refused. There was a lot more talk, and the woman behind the counter said, “Get out!” .whereupon the policeman threw him out. During all that time witness had used no obscene language ' Nothing was said by the constable about arresting him for using obscene language, i Witness walked back into the shop for his ■ purchases and was not molested. He told the constable he was going to report him for molesting him, and went down High street. From the time he left until he reached the corner of Dowling street the constable had not touched him. There, however, the constable called out to a man on a bicycle, who alighted and, aftai | a whispered word or two, tho other man, I who was Constable Maynard, seized him , by the scruff of tho neck, and the two I arms, and doubled him up. Just at the police station Constable Maynard kicked his foot away, and . witness fell on his i knees. As a consequence his trousers were i torn, and he received cuts on his knees. | At the station witness asked permission to use tho ’phone to got a doctor, but be was told that he was not charged with drunkenness but with using obscene language and resisting the police, and that he did not , want a doctor. Witness wanted a doctor to attend o his knees. Cross-examined, witness denied that he offered a policeman a drink from a bottle of. whisky. Mr Hanlon : Nothing has been said about n bottle of whsky. Sub-inspector OTIalloran: Is none ol Barry’s evidence true? Witness; No. When witness ro-enfered the shop for his fruit, bo asked the policeman if he were going to take any notice of the case. The Sub-insnoctor; Oh, you asked him that, did you? W lien Constable Maynard seized him, I witness told him to let him go, ns ho was not under arrest. The Sub-inspector; Can you tell the court why Maynard needed to take hold of you? “Some reason best known to themselves.” To Mr Hanlon: He was going to the station of his own volition to report the constable Mr Hanlon: If Constable Moore had told the other constable that you were going tc report him, and they said. “Let’s put him in,” that would settle it, wouldn’t it? ; Witness: Yes. 1 Tho Magistrate: Why did you go up Princes street and up Manse street? “I went along there with a young fellow,’’ witness answered. Evidence was given by Dorothy Hart, who was with the defendant that night from 7 o’clock till after 10. Defendant was t perfectly sober all that time. s Mr Bundle said that with reference to *

the charge of wilful damage the evidence of the prosecution was unsatisfactory in Certain respects, and ho was certainly not satisfied as to the value of the articles alleged to have been damaged. Nor was he satisfied, from the evidence of Barry, that the damage was wilful. Apparently some articles had been damaged, but it had been left to the imagination of the court how they had come to be damaged. He refused to accept Mrs Paterson’s evidence, as she was undoubtedly biased. The charge would be dismissed. As regards the other two charges, it was alleged that the defendant used obscene language inside and outside. The defendant denied using any such language. The evidence showed that both Mrs Paterson and the defendant were excited, and there was no doubt in his mind, notwithstanding the evidence of Howard and his witness, that the defendant had had drink and was in such a state that he could cause trouble. He ‘imagined that he had been wrongfully accused of knocking over the articles, eyid it was important to consider his frame of mind. Some i on, indeed, did not require much liquor to become obstinate. “I would be sorry to think," his Worship went on, “that any constable would do such a thing as is alleged.” He said that he believed the evidence of the constable that he was called in by a man, and he accented his evidence and that of Brett that strong language was used on this occasion. The defendant had said that he was not arrested for obscene language, but that he was the injured party and went down to report the constable, who followed. “I don’t believe that,’’ Mr Bundle said. “1 believe that the defendant had been arrested. .1 would be sorry to have to believe that he w’as walking quietly when Maynard seized him by the neck and walked him along. My belief is that the condition of the defendant caused trouble, though maybe ?he police were not too gentle. However, the evidence fails to convince me that the defendant resisted arrest." Defendant was found guilty of using obscene language and fined 40s. with witnesses’ expenses (20s) and court costs 11s), the Magistrate remarking that he did not think anyone was very much injured by hearing the language at the time. The other two charges wore dismissed.