THE CLUTHA SLY GROG CASES.

Otago Witness, Volume 25, Issue 2321, 25 August 1898, Page 9

THE CLUTHA SLY GROG CASES.

CHARGES OF PERJURY AGAINST TWO CONSTABLES.

Wednesday, August 17. $Lv C. C. Graham, S.M., iras occupied tho whole of AVednesday afternoon in hearing charges of perjury laid against two constables named John Melville- and James Arthur Oruickshank. The former, John Melville, was charged that he committed perjury in tho testimony he gave on oath, before Mr Hawkins, S.M., as a witness at Clinton afc the hearing of the charge against Richard Irving of selling whisky without being licen&ed on the 22nd July by swearing to the effect that he and one James Arthur Cruickshank had bought whisky from the said Richard Irving on the sth July and paid him a shilling therefor, and that he the said John Melville did not get whisky from the said Richard Irving for nothing. Further, that he did not tell one John Palmer that he and the said James Arthur Cruickshank had got whisky on the sth July from the said Richard Irving without payment. Mr F. R. Chapman appeared to prosecute, and Mr A. C. Hanlon to defend. Mr Hanlon asked that the hearing of the case should be adjourned until some day next week. The case out of which the charges arose was heard at Clinton four weeks ago. Tho informations were issued on the 16th inst., and only sewed on Tuesday. He had "only been instructed late the prcyious evening, and lie had had no opportunity of consulting with his client with a view of preparing a defence. The charge was of a most serious character, and it was only reasonable to give him time to preparo his defence. He would suggest that the case should be adjourned until Tuesday next. Mv Chapman said his learned friend's request was qviite unreasonable: It was quite true that the informations were only laid the day previous, but it was nteo true that the defendant knew that an information was laid last Friday to be heard on Saturday. The witnesses for the ijrosecution had come to town expecting the casc3 to be heard on Sat.tirday, and they had incurred the expense of sending the witnesses home and bringing them to Dunedin again. The issue was a simple one. The accused swore that he had obtained whisky from Irving and paid him for it, and he alao swore that it was not true he never paid for it. There were several items as assignments of perjury. There was no difficulty in going on with the case, and the depositions of the witnesses could be token. If Mr Hanlon could not cross-examine them today he could have the opportunity to do so at a later sitting. He (Mr Chapman) asked his Worship to say that there was no ground for a wholesale adjournment of the case ; that the fair and proper course would be to take the depositions now, as early as they could bo taken, and then, if Mr Hanlon wanted any indulgence for the purpose of cross-examina-tion, he (Mr Chapman) would undertake that the witnesses should be brought back. The position now, however, was that the witnesses had come here for the second time — ho did not blame the defence for that, but still it was the fact, — and this had been done at expenso which it would not be fair to incur aprain. ;Mr irianlon claimed the right to reply. Tie "wished to say, so far as the information laid Last Saturday was concerned, that, although j Mr Chapman alleged that the defendant had knowledge of that information being laid, the , statement was quite incorrect. The defendant Lad no knowledge whatever of that information being laid, and, if it was laid, he (Mr Hanlon) would like to know where it was and WJiat had been done with it. Something must hare happened to the information if it was ! true that it had been laid. It was not, however, brought to the knowledge of the defendant by summons being served upon him. I Even if it was laid, and defendant had knowledge of it, he could not subpoena witnesses ' for t!-e present day, because he did not know , tho case was coming on then. He (Mr Han- ' Ion) understood that one of the witnesses for the defence would be Mr Hawkins, the magistrate who tried tho case. He was not here, and ' iie (Mr Hanlon) did not know where he was J to be found. As to the suggestion that the caso should go on and indulgence allowed if asked for, what he (Mr Hanlon) had to say was that lie did not desire any indulgence at all. He put it to the bench as a matter of reasonableness, was it fair to ask him to go on with such a serious charge witho\it an op- i portunity of conferring with the police or tho i witnesses? Under the circumstances it was fair and reasonable that an adjournment should be granted. It was not 24- hours since the summons was served upon the defendant. If the witnesses were put in the box to-day he (Mr Hanlon) had no instructions as to what he was to do with them, and they would have to go without cross-examination. That would bo an outrageous state of affairs. Mr Chapman said that when the witnesses ■were- produced Mr Hanlon might find thnt there were some of them whom it would not be necessary to cross-examine Mr Graham : The case is not like an ordinary case. It is brought against a police constable who in the disc-barge of his duty made certain statements as sworn evidence. That ought to be perfectly straightforward and unembarrassed by niceties, and I see no difficulty aboiit it. It is not like a case where technicalities are likely to arise in examining the witnesses. I think, seeing that the witnesses ere here, that we should go on as far as we can, and if, in the course of the procedure, it is found necessary to cross-examine witnesses, and the defence is not prepared to do so, it will be competent to ask that they be brought here again. In the meantime, I do not see any reason for granting an adjournment. I shall rule that we go on with the ease as far as we can at present. Mr Hanlon : Under those circumstances I must a.'<k leave to withdraw from the case. My instructions are to -go no further. The defendant will simply submit to the jurisdiction of the court, and it will be open for your Worship and the other Bide to do as you think fit in regard to the matter. My instructions are now to withdraw from the case. Mr Chapman then began to open as to the facts of the case, and was interrupted by a request from accused that all witnesses be ordered out of court. Having outlined the evidence which he proposed to call, Mr Chapman briefly referred his Worship to the law of perjury, and was calling for his first witness, Mr M'Donald, when Melville, one of the accused, rose and said : I ask for an adjournment in order to consult other counsel. Mr Graham: I do not like to see a man in your position without counsel', but having ruled that we go on with the case, I cannot now stultify myself by refusing to go on. Accused : I wish to see other counsel. Mr Chapman: Inspector Pardy appears to have the conduct of the defence. He has been conferring with Mr Hanlon, and is conferring with accused. Ido not say there is any objection to that. But if the defence is to be con- j ducted/ in that way, and tho gentleman who j Was retained is asked to withdraw— because that ia apparently what has taken plswe,—

then surely your Worship has no further ' burden, in the matter, because tha accused seems to have taken that course under advice. Accused: I want counsel. I cannot go on with it myself. Mr Chapman : Here is Mr Pardy literally instructing the accused what to say. I don't bay that is wrong, but surely it is a most extraordinary proceeding. Accused : I want the magistrate's notes ; I can't go on wittiout them. , Mr Cliapman : What your Worship refused , jusc now is being attempted to bo got by manoeuvre. i

Mr Graham : Mr Pardy, the man is cvi- ! dently acting under your advice. Cannot you

instruct him? j Inspector Pardy: I wish the man to get justice. He can't get on without the magistrate's notes. He has no more idea of how to conduct a case than a child. He is a young constable, and was never inside a court until lie gare evidence in this case, and it would be taking great advantage of him to ask him to defend himself against two able lawyers without any assistance whatever. \

Mr Graham : A constable is not like an ordinary layman before a court. He is employed by the Crown to perform certain duties, and all he has to do is to tell the truth. 1 do not see whore any complication is likely to come in, and in such a case as this I should imagine that a constable would be quite able to conduct 'his case even without counsel.

Mr Chapman: Did not Mr Haulon withdraw on instructions from JMr Pardy? 1 challenge Mr Pardy to deny that. It was not a withdrawal. It was a withdrawal only in the sense of a manoeuvre.

Mr Pardy : lam astonished at you saying such a tiling, Mr Chapman. Mr Chapman: Well, if it is not correct, let Mr Pardy or Mr Hanlon deny it. I can oaly say what appears to me. I may be guile incorrect.

■Mr Pardy (after speaking to Mr Hanlon) : Mr Hanlon says lie will appear if you will order the witnesses to stand over for crossexamination. He is not in a position to crossexamine without the magistrate's notes.

Mr Graham said he had already stated that if Mr Hanlon wished an adjournment in order \o cross examine witnesses it could be given. But it would be as well to go as far as they could. There might be some witnesses whom it was not considered neoeseary to cross-examine, and by going on they could get away.

Mr Hanlon said that Mr Chapman had made a statement of that sort. Counsel's etatement was one thing and the assurance of the court another. If the court would give a'i undertaking that any witnesses whom ho desired to cross-examine should be tendered at a later ttage he would appear and take notes of the evidence.

Mr Graham: On application to that effect any witnesses you may wish to cross-examine will be brought back again. I thought I made my pelf clear about tliafc before.

The evidence was then proceeded wilh, tlie first witness^ callod being Daiiiel Douglas M.oodonald, barrister and solicitor, mlio deposed that lie defended Richard Irving at Clinton on the 22nd July. The question at issue was that Irving was tried lor having sold whisky to Melville and Cruicksluuik on the stli July ■without being duly licensed to do so. The witnesses for the piTpncution -uerc Melville, Cruickshank, and Constable Eeimer, and the case was heard by Mr Hawkiuti, S.M. The oath was administered by Constable Reimor. Melville was *,hQ Kocond witness, and in tho course of his evidence said he was a police constable. That he and Cruickshank vent to Clinton on the evening of the 5 Hi July, and engaged rooms al Irving's Prince of Wales Hotel there. Melville said he sat in a front parlour with several others during the evening. There were Cruicksliank, David Murray, Percy Martin, Alexander Gordon, Hugh Smith, and Adam Murray. He said he was called out of tho room about 20 minutes to 12 o'clock by Cruicksliank ; that he, Cruickshank. and Irving went into a room at the back of the bar; that Irving struck a match, the room being dark ; that Irving produced a bottle half full of whisky, and asked him what he would have. Melville said something strong or something warm. Irving put tho bottle before them, and all three had a drink of whisky. They only had one drink each. Cruickshank said he gave a pound note ; that the three of thsm went into the passage ; that Irving went into a room marked "private parlour," and came out and Rave Cruickshunk 19s cliange; that he (Melville) and Cruickshank then went upstairs and went to bed; and loft by the express next day. Witness asked Melville if he had got any other drink of whisky, and he said no ; nor did Cruickshank, as far as he knew. He said he and Cruicksliank ctld not get a drink at the private parlour for nothing that night from Irving, and that Irving never said he would give one for nothing, but that he would not sell it. That was asked several times, and accubed was very positive. He said he would contradict witnesses if they swore ihat he had had a drink without payment. There was no doubt that Melville" \mderstood the significance of the question. It was made very plain. Witness asked him if he liad not told Palmer, who was called subsequently, that lie and his mate had had a drink the night before without payment, and that he did not like to ask for another, and that he wanted Palmer to take him across to Geddes's and get him a drink there. Accused said he never told Palmer that, but he admitted that he had tried to get Palmer to go to Geddes'a and get him a drink there. Constable Reimer, stationed at Clinton, said he acted as clerk of the court at Clinton, and was present when the case against Irving was beard. Administered the oath to Melville in the usual form. This witness's evidence was practically corroborative of that given by the previous witness. David Murray, farmer, residing at Pukerau, said that he" stayed at the Prince of Wa^es Hotel on the sth July. On leaving the room where he was in the evening he went into Mr Irving' s private sitting room, about 10 o'clock. It wa« some time aftor 32 o'clock when he left it, and to the best of his recollection Mr Irving was in that room all the time. Witness heard Cruicksliank speak to Irving at the door of tins room, and also heard Smith and Gordon speaking in the paspage. Witness heard Cruioksl'ank ask Irving if there was any chance of getting a *' nightcap." Irving replied that there was no chance; that prohibition bad been carried; and he also said something about four years. Cruickshank replied that it was hard — that he would like very much to have a drink. Irving, after a little, said, " Well, you can come and have a glass with me." Cruicksliank and Melville came forward within the portico of the door. Mr Irving took a liottle and glasses from his chiffonier, and helped the two meti from the bottle. Witness saw tliat there was liquor in the glasses, and saw also that tlio men drank from the glasses. After having drank the liquor the two men immediately left, and witness heard tlicm going upstairs. Witness was perfectly positive that ho saw the men receive and drink the liquor. Witness heard Irving say that he would not accept payment at the time he was supplying the liquor, but there was no offer to pay,

Could not say how many people went upstairs. Witness &aid to Melville and Cruickshank when they were in the doorway, "Well, are you going to bed, boys? " and they said " Yes."

Percy Martin stated in the course of his evidence that during the evening ho saw on one occasion that Cruickshank was right inside Irving's private sitting room and Melville was on the mat at the door. Heard Cruicksliank ask if there was any chance of getting a "nightcap," and Irving replied, "No; remember, ,«ir, that this is a prohibition district." Ciuickshank seemed bout on getting a drink, and Irving said, "I w;ll give you a drink, but, mind you, I \>i\l nut spli you one." Irving gave Cruickshank and Melville drinks, and witness saw the men drink the liquor. No payment was tendered, and there was no mention of money after Irving said ho would give the men the drinks. Immediately after getting the drinks Cruickshank and Melville went upstairs. Hugh Smith, shepherd, residing at Clinton, said he left the public sitting room of Irving's

hotel about 12 o'clock on tho night of the sth July, and went to see Mr Irring in his I private sitting room. Heard Cruit-kuhank ask ' Irving if he could g*>t a " nip " ur a " night- j cap" before ha wont to bed. Tr\ing replied i that there was no i-!ianc». Ii \%as a pruhibi- j tion district. Cruic»i-hank "aid they wanted I one very badly. Jrvng said, "Well, if you J want a 'nightcn.ii' you can have one with me; but, unourdland, I don't sell it." Irving then supplied the two drinks to Cruickshank and iJelville, and they went upstairs AWanilpr Gordon, railway porter, deposed to bring in the passage of the hotel and to overhwvrirsg a conversation between Cruick- ! shank and Irving. Tho former asked tho latter for a drink, and Irving said he had not a license to sell drink, or words to that effect. Irving objected to supply a drink in several different ways, but finally gave Cruicksliank and Melville a "nightcap' each, for which •there was no payment made. Witness saw the two men and Martin start to go upstairs as ho left the hotel. ! John Palmer, labourer, said he saw Mcl- '

ville, whom he knew well, on tho morning of tho 6th of July. Melville said, " This is a nice place; we can't get a drink here. I got ono last night from the landlord, and he would not take payment for it." He asked witness if thera was any "show" of getting one over tho way, at tho refreshment rooms. "Witness told him ho was not in the habit of going into those places for drink. Air iianlon intimated in the case of each witness that he wished them tendered for cross examination later on. At this stage .of the jjroceedings it was decided to adjourn till Tuesday morning next, it being understood that if Mr Chapman found he was otherwise engaged the case would be further adjourned to the day following. Tho charge against Constable James Arthur Cruickshank, which was similar in character, with the exception that he was not accused of having told John Palmer that he had got whisky on the sth July from Irving without payment, was similarly adjourned, and the court ) ose.