ALLEGED DRUNKENNESS

Southland Times, Issue 17791, 21 July 1916, Page 3

ALLEGED DRUNKENNESS

CHARGE AGAINST A SOLDIER. No fewer than 21 witnesses were concerned in a case which came before Mr G. Cruickshank, S.M., yesterday afternoon. William Maloney, a private In the Sixteenth Reinforcements, appeared on charges of having being found drunk in a public place, and of resisting the police. Senior-Sergeant Burrows prosecuted, while Messrs Haggitt and Tait appeared for the accused, who pleaded •‘Not Guilty." Constable McKenzie gave evidence to the effect that he was at Wallacetown Junction in plain clothes on July 18, and first saw the accused at about 4 p.m. when he appeared considerably the worse of liquor, Witness did not interfere with Maloney until a bystander remarked. “It’s a shame to see a soldier a« drunk as that." When witness looked round for the accused he had disappeared, but witness found him drinking at the bar. When the barman’s attention was drawn to the accused’s condition the former said that Maloney was only getting lemonade to drink. After the accused left the bar witness approached him and told him that he (witness) was a constable and that lie (accused) was drunk and should go home. The accused started to argue with witness who thereupon arrested him and was taking him over to the motor-bus when Mr Ritchie, caretaker of the Soldiers’ Club, protested that he was using unnecessary violence and requested him to let the prisoner go. Witness replied that lie could not, whereupon Ritchie caught him by the arm., Witness released his hold of the accused with that hand and pushed Ritchie from him. Maloney then started to resist although, In the constable's opinion, he would not have done so, but for Ritchie’s action. Witness used no more force than was absolutely necessary to get the accused into the car. To Mr Haggitt: Witness told the accused as soon as he accosted him that he was a constable. He did not catch the accused by the throat, but by his coat. Accused was in a state of collapse through drink. Ritchie, who admitted that Maloney was drunk, tried to incite the crowd against witness. Senr.-Sergt. Burrows and several constables testified to having seen the accused when he reached the station at about 5 pan. He was drunk then. This closed the case for the prosecution. Andrew Wilson, partner in the firm of Kingsland & .Anderson, stated that he first saw the accused in the bar about j 1.25. He was then perfectly sober. When witness again saw accused about 4 p.m. he was perfectly capable of looking after himself, although he certainly had had some drinks. Witness did not see the constable arrest Maloney, but did see him holding the accused by the throat and forcing him back into the car. Maloney was not resisting and nobody interfered with the constable in anyway whatever. Ritchie did protest to the constable that he was using unnecessary violence, but no one laid hands on the constable. Witness as.ked the driver not to start tho car for a minute or two till Ritchie secured the names of the bystanders. Later, at the Police Station, witness saw Sergeant Kelly, and bailed Maloney out. When released the accused certainly looked a little sleepy, but was perfectly sober. From his appearance at 7.30 the accused could not have been very drunk at 5 p.m. To Sergeant Burrows; The constable forced the accused back into the car, but there was no resistance. The crowd was very orderly and Maloney was most certainly not drunk. William Turpin, butcher, Invercargill, stated that he first saw Maloney at about 4 p.m. At about 4.15 witness saw, the constable arrest Maloney, catch him by the throat and force him back into tlio car. The accused appeared to have had sonic drink but he was certainly not drunk nor did' he resist the constable. A number of other witnesses gave similar evidence in which the main points were that the accused was not really drunk, although he had had drink, that the constable had caught Maloney by the throat and nsed unnecessary violence, and that no one interfered with tiie constable. The accused himself admitted having had eight rums with raspberry between 11.30, a.m. and 4.15 p.m. He also made some statements which showed clearly that he had a very hazy recollection of the happenings when he reached the station. In giving his-decision his Worship stated that he was quite satisfied that Maloney had been drunk, and that the constable had been quite justified in arresting him. However, since the accused was a soldier and a conviction might tell against him the case would be dismissed. The charge of drunkenness was accordingly dismissed, while the police withdrew the charge of resistance.