ORMOND HOTEL CASE.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 16113, 30 April 1923, Page 4

ORMOND HOTEL CASE.

MAXIMUM FINE IMPOSED

I'll© further evidence for winch tin: case against Alfred Thomas Rigney, licensee of the Ormoud hotel, was ad jburned recently, was called in th< Magiiiti'ate's' Court this morning-. Tin charge was oiio of failing to admit Constable Leekie without unnecessary delay. Mr J r ,B. Wiuichop appeared for defendant;" Johanna'Gardner, sister of Mrs Rigney stated that Rigney was at her house on April 7 at 10.30 p.m., that being tin day upon which Rigney's* little bo;. broke his arm. Witness arid her husbant had retired, but they were aroused bv Rigney,-who had come into town, as Ik ■wanted to be in town early next morning after the operation. Rigney stayec at ,her house, that .night. She was ii Gisborne on the day of the last hearing. though Mr Rigney bad said that she wa. in papier. She had intended to go, but she.had to postpone the trip; on accoum of .her littl© boy's, illness. Senior-Sergt. Fitzpatrick -warned wit nesa. of the seriousness of her. oath.

To .thjß Semqr-Sergt. fitness admitted reading the previous proceedings in ( the newspaper,.' She rang Mrs Rigney *anc asked about it, and Mrs Rigney said "You have, to go to Uqurl and prov< that Mr Rigney was at your house tha night." . Subsequently Mr Rigney me her, and asked' whether she was pre pared to go" to Court,and swear that h< was at-the house. Witness Avas surf thai tte time was 10.30 p.m.' Senior-Sergt.' Fifzpa trick: Were not you surprised to see him at that hour? —Well, I expected Mrs Rigney in. ■Sehior^Sergt.: I put it to you that Mr Rigney visited your house at between 11 "p.m. : and midnight. Will you deny that?—Yes. She 'explained that when she was aroused.' sh© looked at. the clock and saw thai.ihe time was'lol3o.

Fitzpatrick: Caii yon gay.why it was so definitely announced in Court, last lime that you and Mr Gardner were away?' - No, I can't say, except that they might not have known-that wo had not gone. T& Mr Wauchop witness denied that Riomey. suggested the time to her. His Worship: How was it that yoi kept this incident of 10.30 in. your mind? —rl,. don't know. Henry. Burton Gardner, carrierj gav< eviderke on similar lines. He also waS quite* sure that the hour was 10.30 p.m. . ..: •Senior-Sergt, Fitzpatrick: What did you do after reading the account in the paper ?—Nothing whatever. Righey,- witness continued, culled al witness' house last Monday to ask him to come as a witness that he was in tin houie on the night of the child's a'cciderit. "'" '■ '

'Senior-Sergt. Fitzpatrick: Did he ask you the hour of his 'arrival?—lt may have been mentioned'.

I- can show you that the hour of Mi Rigney's arrival was between 11 p.m. and midnight. "What would you say tc that?-i-It" was "10.30 by the clock. Witness, further questioned, staled that .the journey from Omond by cai would occupy a quarter of an hour or Comminutes

'His. Worship stated that the evidence MX the police had been given in a precise, definite manner, alleging definite facts which- Would, if proved, be serious breach of the Act. For the defence', the Statement had last w-cel-been, made "that: two witnesses required were' away/ exonerated counsel foi that, but Vas riot prepared to exoncraU defendant for' the fact that, either wit fully or'carelessly, tho witnesses were not called, though they were here an'c could 'liavef been called!. The evidence forH/he' - defence was' very uiisatisfactery. The. wfie of the licensee had declined tc eomrdit" herself as to the hour when her husband left. Then, when th e issue lHfcame -as to what hour he arrived in town two'witnesses were called to-day. His Worship " was not satisfied with tlteir * evidence. He was satisfied that the; constable's evidence as to he:uim. tl»6 -licensee's voice was correct. There was. no . doubt but that the doors were locked, and that tho poilco knocked arid called, hut could not get admission. /To his Worship Senior-Sergt. Fitzpat rick-stated that defendant's record was a bad ;one for the short time Iks ha"d been in charge of tho hotel. His Worship stated that in view ol the' evidence he would call upon defendant to show cause' why his license should not be endorsed. Mr Wauchop explained that ol the three convictions, two arose out of the same eet of facts, while the other one was' only a technical ofTenec. He had been, for 18 months in the Orrrtorid hotel, but prior to that he. had been for eight years in the Wnerengn-a-hika hotel, and during that time ho had had nothing charged, against limi, hut ne had good reports from the police. It was not a pase for endorsement, and Mr Wauchop suggested, that a fine, perhaps a heavy one', would meet the case: ; His Worship pointed out that the section provided for a maximum fine oi only"£s for .a- first offence. He.'recognised the (Seriousness of an endorsement. Perhaps,' however, if. defendant were., given oniyoonefinal dpportunity he would make-the most'of it. He was reluctant. in view of the class of evidence he had liad to listen to, not to inflict the endorsement.. He -warned defendant, however, that if he committed another breach, not only, would his license be endorsed, but- ho would probably not be granted a license in the future. Therefore he warned defendant to be careful. Tinder the he would inflict the nv-imum pernorj a fine of ho, with costs 7s,