THE MACARTNEY CASE.

Otago Witness, Issue 3802, 25 January 1927, Page 25

THE MACARTNEY CASE.

ALLEGED PERJURY. An echo of the case, Lockett ' v. Macartney, in. which John William Lockett proceeded against Constable George Macartney at the last session of ..the 'Supreme Court and recovered damages for wrongful arrest and assault, was heard; at the City Police Court on Friday before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., when ■ Macartney was brought up on two charges'of perjury. ; The first charge was that: — Macartney, on November 3, 1936. at Dunedin, committed perjury in the hearing of an action brought in the Supreme < Court at Dunedin by John William Lockett against him by swearing (1) that about half-past 11 on the night of July 23, 1926, in Kenmure road, Mornington, Lockett was very drunk and that he then and there arrested him for drunkenness in a public place; (2) that when coming along Kenmure road Lockett was staggering all over the road and smelt very strongly of liquor; (3) that Lockett was then staggering all over the road and was drunk and thoroughly drunk, .and (4) that when he had Lockett in the watch-house and put him in the cell, he was still drunk. On the second information Macartney was charged with having: — On November 3. 1926, at Dunedin, committed perjury on the hearing of an action brought in the Supreme Court at Dunedin, by swearing that he never at any time struck Lockett a blow of any description either with his clenched fist or otherwise during the whole of a struggle between himself and Lockett-on' the night of July 23, 1926. Mr A. C. Hanlon appeared for accused and Mr F. B. Adams for the prosecution. After Mr Adams had briefly outlined the grounds for the prosecutior evidence was given by Ernest White Cave,- registrar of the Supreme Court, Dunedin, who said he knew defendant in the present case. He was also defendant in an action heard before the Supreme Court on November 3. On this occasion defendant was called as a witness' on his ..rn behalf and was duly sworn. He had sworn that Lockett was drunk and that he arrested him for drunkenness in a public place and that when Lockett reached the watchliouse he was still drunk. Defendant had also sworn that Lockett, the night he was arrested, was staggering ’about the road and smelt of liquor. Macartney had further denied th; t he at any time struck Lockett either with his clenched fist or otherwise during the struggle between them, and that at no time was his band in the vicinity Lockett’s throat. John William Lockett, a labourer, residing at 14 Stone street, Mornington. said that for some time he had been living ! with his adopted sister, Mrs Hughes, whore | property had a gate entering on to Kenmure road. The second house down in Kenmure road was also occupied by a relative of his, Mrs Carr. There was an empty section close by. He was a married man and had had. trouble with his wife, who eft him last February. Here Mr Hanlon objected to the relevancy of several questions put by Mr Adams to witness regarding the circumstances under which his wife left him, but Mr Adams submitted that as the questions were relevant in the Supreme Court action they should be relevant in the present c e, as it was only right that the second jury should have the same materia' as the first.- , His Worship agreed, but stipulated that the evidence should be kept within reasonable limits. Lockett then gave evidence on similar lines to that given by him in prior court proceedings relating to his wife, and the statement made by Constable Macartney in evidence relative to his wife receiving financial assistance from Mrs Macartney in the carrying on of S confectionery business in St. Kilda. Witness then detailed .his movements on the night when he was alleged to have been drunk. ' He was at St. Kilda with a Mr Davidson up to about 11 p.m. They joined a tramcar a few minutes later, which brought them to the Exchange. He joined the 11.10 p.m. cable car up High street, and sat in the trailer with Davidson. Fleming and another man named Johnson were in the same compartment. Davidson and Fleming were engaged in conversation; they were discussing football refereeing-. Davidson accompanied witness part of the way home, and left him near Kenmure road. Shortly afterwards Macartney appeared and punched witness in . the face, knocking him down an incline at the side of ,the footpath. When witness called out, defendant put his hand over his mouthy and caught him by the throat. Defendant then arrested him and took him to Mornington Police Station, which they reached some time after 11.30. Macartney took witness into his office and shut and locked the door, after which witness heard Sirs Macartney call out, “Have you got him?” Witness was then taken to the Dunedin Police Station. Witness detailed the nature of .th <’• mission which took place between the three constables on the way from Mornington to the Central Police Station. While at the station Constable Todd (watch-, house keeper) said to Constable Macartney: “What are you charging him with?” Accused said: “Drunkenness.” Witness was then locked up. Further evidence was then led with a view’to showing that witness was not intoxicated when he was arrested. When witness was charged with drunkenness he pleaded .not guilty, and the charge was dismissed.;.. On the day after his’ arrest he saw Drs Reid and G~rald Fitzgerald.' Witness said he was gassed at the war. His nerves troubled him a good deal, and he would not go out unless there was someone with him. For four-, or five months prior to his arrest he had not had any intoxicating liquor. He had not had more than four or five drinks during that year. ” To Mr Hanlon: He was not maintaining his wife 'or children. He had not had a chance of maintaining them owing to the present court proceedings. ’ Owing to the strain of what he had gone' through duringthe last -.12 months his health had not been courL.proceefJingß His., wife had said he was guilty bl cruelty. and ■’ was an habitual drunkard. He had been drunk on one occasion only. It was a false and trumped-up charge against him. There were absolutely no grounds for the charges

of cruelty and drunkenness. He went to St. Kilda to see how his children were getting on because he heard his wife was going out dancing. He had been out to see his children on two or three occasions between February and July. He had not known his wife to be out dancing during the period mentioned. His uncle, John Lockett, went out with him on one -occasion. Witness said he would not commit himself to any: particular date, Mr Davidson was with him on another occasion. „ • , At .this stage the court-orderly (Constable Garbutt) produced John Lockett and stated that he had discovered him listening to the evidence.

His Worship (addressing Lockett) said; You were along with other witnesses ordered out of court and ordered to remain out of hearing. - Locket said he did not hear anything. Constable Garbutt, in reply to the Magistrate, said that there was no mistaking the fact that Lockett was standing by the slidein the passage listening to the evidence being given in the court. The Magistrate said that Constable Garbutt was an experienced court orderly. Addressing John Lockett his Worship said: You go back to the witness's room. and remain there until called. . Continuing, witness said he did not believe that Mrs Macartney had helped his wife- financially. He knew that Constable Macartney had visited his wife’s shop. Witness always took a friend with him- for company's sake, and to verify what he (witness) might see or hear. Mr Hanlon: You used to drink. Why did you give it up? Witness: I had something else on my mind, and, besides, I had no money. I have had only two glasses of beer during the past 12 months. As far as he (witness) knew, Mr .Davidson had had no liquor; on the night on which witness was arrested. He was not responsible for the brokeft whisky bottle which was found at Le Cren’s gate on the following morning. He knew he was being watched, and was being followed. On occasions he saw a man about 20 vards; behind him. When they got to Le Cren’s gate Davidson said: “Yoy are over the. worst .-part of the road. You will be all right now.” Witness then went the remainder of the journey alone. He was overtaken bv Macartney, who staggered witness with a blow from his ■ fist. Witness could . not have bitten Macartney’s hand, as his front teeth were missing. After Constable Macartney had finished with witness.the condition of witness’s face would have led anyone to assume that witness had been drinking. He was not surprised that Constables Maynard and Shannon: should have considered'he was drunk from an examination of.his face. These constables were doubtless . nistaken by th- appearance of witness’s face. He could not account for Constable Todd, ~.i experienced police . officer, saying witness and the cell he had occupied It of liquor the morning after. They must .Li have deliberately |. perjured themselves.- He had no malice 5 against Constable Macartney. ’ Whilst-in Kaitangata witness had complained to the local constable that be was being followed, and that tlie- people who were following him were round the house where he was taying. ; John Lockett, a labourer, residing at 14 Stone street, Mornington, said he was an adopted brother of the previous witness, who resided at the same house as he did and called him uncle. On July 23 Lockett Lad come home about a quarter past J and went out again about 6.45. He was perfectly sober. Witness saw him again on the following Saturday afternoon, when he appeared to have been knocked about pretty badly. To Mr Hanlon: Lockett was never addicted to drink. Witness himself had never been drunk in his life, aud he was certainly not drunk on November 30 last. He had gone to South Dunedin on one occasion with his nephew aud walked past Mrs Lockett's shop, but -lie could not remember what month it was, although he could recollect that 1 left the vicinity about 9 o’clock. . < “It’s a pity yon didn't get more time to listen at the ventilator,’’ said- Mr Hanlon.

Witness repudiated the suggestion that he had been listening, and further stated that he had never stood opposite Mrs Lockett’s shop' at all on the night he went to South Dunedin with his nephew. They- had gone us fat as Hargreaye’s Hotel, where they turned, came back past the shop.:. again, returned —to the hotel- corner, and passeo the shop again, when .--witness went home alone. lie forgot whether-his nephew told ■him that he wanted him to go down to see what his wife was doing. He could swear positively that he. had never stopped in.'front of Mrs;Lockett’s shop. Further questioned, by Mr Hanlon, witness said he could not remember whether he and his nephew went home together or not,, and if they parted, he could not recollect’where.. At this stage the Magistrate said to witness : “Your statements are so obviously untrue. Lockett, that something more is wanted from you. AVhat did you go out to .South Dunedin for?’’ Witness: We went out for a walk. ■ Witness, continuing, said that .he could not say that he ;had ever seen his nephew have a drink in a public house. He might have done so, but he-, could not remember,. Ho could not remember going home with his nephew. He thought he parted. with him at the foot of -High- street. Witness said he did not think ho was working on July 23. ■’’At this -stage his -'.Worship said he. .did not think he would hear any further-'evi-dence. “The witness,” said his Worship, “has so far proved 'most unsatisfactory;’* ■ The case was then adjourned till 10 a.m. ti-day, . accused being admitted same bail as witnesses being warned by the Magistrate that they must hot discuss the matfer-with Lockett or with) anyone else., ... .’s■