POLICE COURT
SITTING AT GORE. ON PREMISES BY NIGHT. (From Our Correspondent.) At a sitting of the Gore Police Court yesterday, Mr H. J. Dixon, SAI., presiding, the partly-heard case in which Robert Fletcher, Albert H. G. Tuckey and William Ford were charged with being found by night on the premises of the Princess Theatre without lawful excuse was continued. Mr W. Aitken appeared on behalf of Fletcher and Mr Bannerman appeared for the other defendants. In stating the case for Fletcher, Mr Aitken said that Fletcher had been employed at the theatre for a number of years, but some months ago his services had been dispensed with. Since then, however, he had been in the habit of going there fairly frequently and at times assisted the operator. On occasions also when the theatre was used for any special entertainments, he was employed as an usher. It was true that the proprietor had not given Fletcher any written authority to go into the theatre at any time he pleased, but had never taken any exception to his being there. He was admitted to the pictures without payment and because of the freedom given to him in this and other directions had a a bona fide belief that he had the right to go there. Mr Bannerman, in addressing the Court on behalf of Tuckey and Ford, said that these defendants were required to prove that they had reasonable grounds for believing that they were justified in going there. Fletcher had invited them to go to the theatre with him and they believed that he was employed there as caretaker and was entitled to go there. With reference to the statement made to the police by Tuckey he did not think that too great an importance could be attached to this, as it was contradictory. Mr Bannerman: Sergeant Packer’s statement is a reflection on counsel and I ask that he withdraw it. The Magistrate: You should withdraw that statement, Sergeant. Sergeant Packer withdrew the statement, but said that counsel had not given him a chance to conclude what he was going to say. Constable Symons said that he knew that the premises were used for the consumption of liquor. He had been there on one occasion and had seen glasses which smelt of beer. On one occasion he went down there and saw a man named Mackie go into the stable. Some time later he saw Latham Braxton and another man leave the premises. It was obviously a statement which Tuckey would not have made on his own and could not have been made except in answer to questions which, were misleading. Sergeant Packer took exception to the last statement made by counsel, and went on to state that when counsel came into the Court they should be honest in all things. Robert Fletcher stated that on the night in question he was at a dance in the Town Hall. While there he met Ford, who reminded him of a promise to show him the operating matchine at the picture theatre. Witness suggested that they should go down there. On their way to the theatre Ford saw Tuckey and he joined in with them. They entered the theatre by the back door and witness showed the other two through the back rooms. For a time they sat and talked and then witness took the others down the isle with the intention of showing them the operating machine. On their way they heard a loud banging at the front door. They opened the door and found Constable Symons outside. The constable asked if they had any liquor there and witness replied that they had not. The constable also asked what they were doing there and witness said that he was showing the other two round. To Mr Bannerman: The other two defendants thought that he was the caretaker and assumed that he had a right to show them over the theatre. There was no truth in a suggestion that they had entered by way of a window. There was no attempt to hide from the constable and, if they had wished to avoid him, they could have done so by leaving by the back door. Albert H. G. Tuckey, said that he thought that Fletcher was employed by Crawford and that he was entitled to show them the machine. When he was arrested by the constable he understood that he was being charged with breaking and' entering and with the theft of money. The sergeant did not allow him to make his statement in his own way, but asked him questions. He was naturally upset with being charged of such a serious offence. The statement did not contain all that he said to the sergeant. He did not tell the sergeant that he was aware that he had no right to be on the premises. He did not drink and had no liquor on the night in question.
To Sergeant Packer: He was not told that if he did not wish to make a statement he need not do so and that the statement would be used against him. He would still say that he was bullied by the sergeant when making the statement.
William Ford gave evidence along similar lines to that given by Fletcher. Constable Shugrue, called by the sergeant to give evidence of rebuttal, said that he was in the sergeant’s office on three or four occasions when Tuckey was making his statement. He never heard the sergeant bully Tuckey. He was working in an adjoining office and if the sergeant had been talking in a loud way, witness must have heard him.
The Magistrate said that Fletcher had failed to satisfy him that he had an excuse to be on the premises. No doubt Fletcher had an exaggerated idea of his value to the picture show, but that was no excuse. Fletcher was convicted and ordered to pay 7/- costs and 10/- witnesses’ expenses.
Referring to the case against the other two defendants, the Magistrate said that they appeared to have, more or less, been led by Fletcher. If Tuckey had been straightforward, he could have been excused, but he did not think Tuckey had kept to the truth. He would be convicted and discharged. Ford, who had been straightforward, would be dismissed. PROCURING LIQUOR. Robert Fletcher was charged with, on July 15, procuring liquor during the currency of a prohibition order against him. Constable Symons said that at about 2.20 a.m. on July 15 the defendant called at the Police Station showing signs of liquor. He was drunk, but was not sufficiently intoxicated to be put in the lock-up. Fletcher smelt of whisky and talked a lot, but witness told him to get home. To Mr Aitken: Among other things Fletcher said was to inquire what the regulations were in regard to the borrowing of a rifle. Witness formed the opinion that he was wanting to borrow a rifle in order to do himself in. He thought this because from what he knew of Fletcher he had come to the conclusion that he was suicidal. On the following day Fletcher called at his house and admitted that he had had liquor. Fletcher had a habit of calling at the Police Station when he had had liquor. The Magistrate: Putting his head in the lion’s mouth, as it were. Mr Aitken, for the defendant, said that approximately only an hour had elapsed since the constable had seen Fletcher at the Princess Theatre. The constable had stated in the previous case that Fletcher was not then showing signs of liquor. After leaving the theatre Fletcher went down as far as the Main street with Tuckey and Ford and then had a talk with the night watchman. While talking to him he saw Constable Symons go into the Police Station and that reminded him that some time previously he had asked the constable what the regulations were in regard to the borrowing of firearms. The constable had promised to look up the regulations and Fletcher took this opportunity of seeing him again about the matter. Robert Fletcher gave evidence along the lines of counsel’s statement, and said that when he went to see Constable Symons at his house, he had been scared with a summons for a breach, of his prohibition order.
It was in reference to this that he had gone to see Hie constable as he could not understand ft. He never admitted to the constable that he had had liquor. Evidence was also given by J. Fletcher, brother of the defendant, who stated that when he returned home the defendant showed no signs of liquor. The defendant was convicted and ordered to pay 7/- costs and was ordered to come up for sentence when called upon. OTHER CASES. John Ixitham (Mr Aitken) was charged with keeping premises in Gorton street as a resort for the consumption of liquor. After hearing the evidence the Magistrate stated that the whole question turned upon what constituted a place of resort. He reserved his decision. Duncan Stewart was charged with allowing a chimney at his residence, Halton street, East Gore, to catch fire. He was convicted and fined 5/-, with 7/- costs. James Caldwell, for leaving a car unattended in Mersey street, Gore, for a period longer than that permitted by the by-laws, was convicted and .fined 5/-, with 12/- costs. David Stewart, for exceeding the speed limit within the outer area of the borough, was convicted and fined £l, and 12/- costs. MAINTENANCE. Mrs McDowell (Mr Bannerman) proceeded against John McDowell for arrears of a maintenance order in respect to his wife and five children. Defendant, who did not appear, was convicted and sentenced to seven days’ imprisonment, to be released on the payment of £1 0/8 arrears, the sum of £7 6/- having been paid into Court.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ST19260804.2.69
Bibliographic details
Southland Times, Issue 19939, 4 August 1926, Page 8
Word Count
1,648POLICE COURT Southland Times, Issue 19939, 4 August 1926, Page 8
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Southland Times. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.