THE MACARTNEY CASE

Otago Witness, Issue 3803, 1 February 1927, Page 27

THE MACARTNEY CASE

FURTHER EVIDENCE TAKEN. LENGTHY CROSS-ELAMINATIONS. The case in which Constable George Macartney, of Mornington, was charged with perjury was resumed at the City Police Court on Tuesday before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M. The first charge was that:—Macartney, on November 3, 1926, 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, comemitted perjury on the hearing of an action brought in the Supreme Court at Dunedin, by swearing that he never at any tixe 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. John Lockett was again’placed in the witness box. Mr . Adams and Mr Hanlon both stated that they had no further questions to ask the witness. Dr Arthur Alexander Reid said he knew John William Lockett. He examined him on July 24, about 1.30 or 2 p.m. at the home of his aunt, Mrs Hughes. He was sitting on a couch by the window. He bore the appearance of having been knocked about. He was excited—he was fidgety and was almost crying. There were marks on his face and one of his eyes was swollen, and there were also marks on his neck and hands. His right cheek and the region of the left eye were swollen. There was evidence of bleeding. The right ear was slightly lacerated and showed evidence of having bled. He examined him with a view to seeing whether he had been drunk recently. He did not think he had been helplessly drunk the previous night. He saw him about a week later. His nerves were in a bad condition. To Mr Hanlon: His whole condition was consistent with his having been in a scuffle in which he was resisting arrest by a constable. If Macartney had delivered a blow on Lockett’s cheek witness would have expected to find a considerable swelling and a black eye, within a few hours. All he had on the cheek bone was a contusion, with little swelling. Lockett had evidently received a knock, but witness was unabl© to say how it was caused. It was possible that all his injuries were obtained in a “rough and tumble.” Dr Gerald Patrick Fitzgerald gave corroborative evidence. He had attended John William Lockett for about three years. He saw him on July 24 at about 4.30 p.m. He was in a very excitable state. Witness described the marks on his face and neck. His left eye was bloodshot. In witness’s opinion he had not been excessively drunk on the previous night. Had he been very drunk witness would have expected to find evidence of it by a furred tongue, and both eyes would have been blood-shot. His memory also would not have been clear as to what had happened on the previous night. He knew he had been -gassed at the war. To Mr Hanlon: Witness said he had been called in to find if Lockett had been drunk. Tt was easier for the five constables who saw him on the previous evening to judge, as to . whether Lockett was drunk than it was for witness, who saw him the next day late in the afternoon. T T nder these conditions he would not be prepared to contradict on oath the evidence of these constables, which was to the effect that Lockett was drunk. He did not smell any liquor on Lockett. He did not specially investigate for any such smell.. Had he had much liquor the night before he would have expected to have seen his tongue a. good deal more furred than it was. He did not get Lockett up on his lees. This would not have told witness anything; and he did not think it was necessary. Had witness thought that Lockett had had any drink he would have made him stand up. He would agree with Dr Reid that his impression was that he had not been helplessly drunk, but he may have been under the influence of liquor. \The mark on the heck could have been caused by other than a blow from a man’s clenched fist. The bloodshot condition of the left eye might have been caused by a foreign substance in it. John Bryce Thompson, solicitor, in the employ of Mr W. G. Hay, said Lockett came into his office on the 24th. and witness appeared for him in the Police Court the next morning. To Mr Hanlon: Lockett came in to see Mr Hay, and while he waited he spoke to. witness and walked about the 1. Witness noticed no signs of drink on Lockett, and from his recollection’ of the evening in question he would say that he was sober.

John Davidson, a wharf labourer, living at 14 Lawrence street, Mornington, said he had known Lockett for years, and ho would say that he was not an habitual inebriate. He was of sober habits. Witness saw Lockett at his (witness’s) house at 7 p.m. on July 23 when he was quite sober. He had no drink at witness’s house. Witness and Lockett, later went down town and out to Catgill’s corner. They went to Mrs Lockett’s shop and watched for an hour to see if anyone went in or came out. They then went up to Bay View road, taking a tram. When on the tram the conductor raised no objection to them. After boarding the Mornington tram they got into conversation with others on the car. After alighting from the tram at the terminus he set off home. Lockett wanted witness to go with him as he was afraid to go homo alone. He left Lockett at Lo Oren’s gate in Jubilee street, but followed him after he went on towards his home, from which he was 100 yards when witness last had sight of him. Neither witness nor Lockett had any drink all night

and Lockett was perfectly sober when witness left him. To Mr Hanlon: He went out with Lockett that night because he had been informed that Mrs Lockett was going out dancing and neglecting the cjpldren. Mr Hanlon: What was your interest in the business? Witness: 1 was to be there to be a witness in case anything was doing. I thought we might see someone going in or coming out of the shop. Continuing, witness said that had they found “anything doing” they would have reported the matter to the police, a course they would have adopted even had Mrs Lockett left someone in charge of the children while she danced. Witness was with Lockett watching the shop on two occasions only. When Lockett followed someone who had come out of tht shop witness waited a quarter of an hour and then met Lockett at Cargill’s Corner. No one else came out of the shop after Lockett left, but witness saw Mrs Lockett standing on the pavement. Mr Hanlon drew witness’s attention to the fact that his statements about the passengers on the Mornington tram and other incidents on the way ‘up conflicted badly with the evidence he had given in the Supreme Court, producing the written evidence. When confronted with the notes witness said he had told the truth to the best of his ability. Mr Hanlon: Why did Lockett ask you to go home with him? Witness: Because he was afraid that he was being followed. Lockett and myself had been followed by someone on the night of July 19. Lockett was afraid that Macartney was following him and was out to get him. Mr Hanlon: But Lockett told the court that he had no idea who was following him. Witness: We found out two nights later that it was a man named Jackson who had followed us on the 19th, and I am absolutely certain that Macartney put Jackson up to following us. Mr Hanlon asked witness why he did not go right home with Lockett when he had gone so far, to which witness replied that he did not wish to keep his wife waiting.

Mr Hanlon suggested that the supply of liquor had run out in Jubilee street, and witness had then decided to go home, to which witness replied with a heated denial that neither _had had any Tiquor. During subsequent cross-eexamination witness, when told to address the magistrate said he did not wish to do so. He wanted to speak to the people. For the fourth time since he took the stand he was warned against being impertinent. The witness was cross-examined at considerable length by Mr Hanlon on the subject of a second visit to ’South Dunedin. Witness denied that they went anywhere near the shop, but he would not contradict Lockett if he said they had done so. Continuing his cross-examina-tion of Davidson, Mr Hanlon asked witness if, on this second occasion, Lockett had asked to be accompanied home. The reply was in the negative. -. .Witness said he had no conversation with Lockett about the occasion on which they had watched the shop, and at no time had Lockett stated to witness that he would like to catch Macartney about the place. Asked how long it was since he had fallen out with the accused, witness said it was only since the drunkenness proceedings had been taken against Lockett. His connection -with Lockett was in the capa- < ty of witness to anything tHt might transpire. Mr Hanlon then suggested that witness should explain to the magistrate what he meant when he said that Lockett had said nothing about going iut to the shop when theY set out. Witness said Lockett asked him to be a witness on the second occasion, but not on the first. He hadr a private detective who was making no headway, and in taking witness the second time he wanted witness to assist him to do the work himself. Witn 3 had never been out on his own. He had not wanted to be mixed up in any case in which Mrs Lockett was concerned. Mr Hanlon then siiggested that witness had no grudge against Mrs Lockett. All the animus in tlje case was directed against Macartney. To this witness replied that he had no ill-feeling for Macartney. He also denied having been ordered out of Jubilee Park by accused for spying on ccuples. Macartney had called him a waster and had said that witness’s son was the worst boy in Mornington, but witness held no grudge against him for all that. A minute later witness admitted that he had fallen out with accused as a result of what he had said about himself and his family. -Ie could not be friendly with Macartney, the policeman, until aciused had “got even with him.” V» itness said he had never drunk with Lockett and had never smelt drink on Lockett, but when Mr Hanlon reproduced the Supreme Court evidence to the effect that witness had smelt liquor on Lockett, he had to admit that there had been an occasion on which he had smelt drink on Lockett. When asked to reconcile the two statements witness said he must have made a mistake. x The Magistrate reminded witness that he was on oath, and also that he had already had occasion to comment on the manner in which evidence had been given in the case. The witness was apparently suffering from a defective memory. He.could -only assume that the evidence was being given very carelessly or in a wilfully misleading manner. denied having said to accused, We 11 have the coat off your back next week.” A friend of his named Drinnan had made that statement. Witness had not endorsed the sentiment, but, in conclusion, he said there were others besides himself who would welcome accused’s removal from Mornington. William Fleming, a clerk residing in Roseberry street, Mornington, said he travelled in the trailer of the Mornington cable car, going up at 11 p.m. on July 23. Lockett and Davidson were also passengers in that car. He detailed the conversation which took place in the car between himself and Davidson. The subject of the conversation was refereeing at football matches.

To Mr Hanlon: It was Davidson who first spoke to witness about giving evidence in the case. Until Lockett’s case came on he did not know him. He had seen him passing previously but did not know him to speak to. Davidson said that “Lockett was the fellow with me."

He then questioned witness as to Lockett’# condition as regards , sobriety. Witness said he saw nothing wrong with him. Ho was sure that Davidson was telling a, lio if he swore that he (Davidson) was tho first to enter the trailer. Witness was the first passenger to enter the trailer. He could not swear positively that Lockett was sober,\on that occasion, but to tho best of his knowledge he was. Witness said, he was not taking any exceptional notice of Lockett. Hunter Johnson, a fitter, residing at Blair street, Mornington, said he was a passenger by the car on which the previous witness travelled.. Ho knew Lockett previously.. He spoke to Lockett, remarking . that it. was a cold night. Lockett replied that it was, or words to that effect. There was nothing to indicate that Lockett was other than sober. To Mr Hanlon: He was not near enough to smell Lockett’s breath. It was Lockett who first asked witness to give evidence in the case in which he (Lockett) was charged with drunkenness. Witness volunteered to give evidence. He took very little interest in either Lockett or his companion; Mr Hanlon : Macartney has had occasion to take action with regard to some members of your family, has he not? —That is my business. The Magistrate: Mr Johnson, remember you are giving evidence in a case in which a man is up on a criminal charge, 1 and you must answer the questions pub to you. Witness then admitted that a relative of his had been prosecuted by Macartney for breaking and entering and theft, and he was convicted. Macartney had also prosecuted some other of his‘relatives. Ha did not, however, have any grudge against Macartney. Charles Williamson, a tram conductor employed on the Mornington trams, said he recollected Johnson, Fleming, Lockett and Davidson in the trailer of the last tram on the night of July 23. Lockett paid two fares and had no difficulty in producing the money. Witness could detect no signs of liquor on Lockett. In answer to Mr Hanlon witness said there was a fair crowd on the tram, and he had no occasion to examine Lockett closely. He. took the fare and passed on. Herbert Edward Gardiner, a factory forenian, living at Tainui, said he was residing at 19 Napier street, Mornington, on July 23, on the evening of which day he heard cries of distress outside at about 11.30. He was partially undressed and ready , for bed, so he did not go out to investigate. His home was about 100 yards from Lockett’s. Mr Hanlon said that a prima facie case had not been made out. There were two charges against the accused. The first was that Macartney swore Lockett was drunk, and the second that he had assaulted Lockett, but had sworn that he did not do so. So far as the assault was concerned, it was not sufficient for a person to swear that he had been attacked. The evidence had to be corroborated. The principal evidence was that of the two doctors, and they did not agree; therefore, the evidence had to go by the board. It was proved that Lockett was engaged in a scuffle, and there was every reason to believe that his injuries were sustained through this. It could not be said there was any evidence to corroborate that of Lockett that he was assaulted. With regard to the charge of drunkenness, there was no reliable evidence to show that Lockett was not drunk. He (counsel) ventured to say that no bigger pack of lying witnesses had ever been got together. They could not even tell a consistent story. The only consistent witness was Fleming, and he admitted that he could only see with one eye. The Magistrate: The tram conductor was quite consistent. .Mr Hanlon: Yes, I agree that Mr Williamson was consistent. Continuing, Mr Hanlon said that the question whether a man was drunk or not was really a matter of opinion. When Macartney gave evidence that, in his opinion, Lockett was drunk, it could not be assumed that he did so for the purpose, of deliberately misleading the court. When two doctors could not agree on a point such as that, was it not reasonable to assume that others might be mistaken? He asked the court to exercise its discretion and dismiss the case. Mr Adams said he did not feel called upon to reply in detail to the evidence which had been given. He contended that there was not one scrap of evidence to support the contention that Lockett was drunk. On the other hand, the evidence which had been tendered went .to show that he was a sober man when he left the tram terminus. The Magistrate said that, in view of the unreliablity of the evidence for the prosecution, and taking into consideration the grave nature of the charges preferred against accused, he would have to consider the matter at length. He would reserve his decision. A remand was granted accordingly, with bail in the same amount as before.

CHARGE DISMISSED. The decision was given yesterday, the Magistrate dismissing the charges.