MISSING BARREL OF BEER

Taranaki Daily News, 15 March 1928, Page 14

MISSING BARREL OF BEER

THEFT CHARGE PREFERRED INCIDENT AT OKATO HOTEL. COURT RESERVES DECISION. The case in which Henry Dickson was charged with stealing on December 24 a ten gallon barrel of beer valued at £2 IDs, the property of Edward James Bullock, of tihe Oka to Hotel, the hearing of which was commenced last week, was advanced another stage yesterday when, after hearing the evidence and addresses the magistrate, Mr. R. W. Tate, intimated that he would adjourn the case until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, when he would give his decision. Defendant, who pleaded not guilty, \4as represented by Mr. A. A. Bennett. Senior-Sergeant McCrorie, who prosecuted, called Luke Cummings, labourer, of Tumahu Road, Who said that on December 24 he was at the Okato Hotel, and he saw a Maori carry a 10 gallon keg of beer away, but he could not say that it was Dickson. The Maori had asked witness’ companion (Dick Hill) to take the beer home for him.

In cross-examination, witness said it was after the issue of the proceedings that the licensee saw witness, he thought.

Matthew Richard Hill, contractor, Okato, said Dickson, Whom he identified, had asked witness to take a barrel of beer home Tor him. A barrel of about 10 gallons’ capacity was nearby. Witness refused, as his lorry was out of repair. Cross-examined by Mr. Bennett, witness said the beer was just inside a little gate on the Opunake side- of the hotel. After the conversation, at Dickson’s invitation, witness, Cummings, another Maori, and Dickson had a drink. For a man to pick up a 10-gallon keg of beer and take it away from the bar without being seen 'he would need to be “pretty slick.” In reply to Mr. Bennett, witness said he did not remember Cummings saying anything to him about seeing a Maori with a barrel of -beer outside or in the bar. BEER AMONGST PINE TREES. Richard William Lawson, bus driver, said that about 0.30 p.m. a Maori at the hotel had asked witness to take a barrel of beer along the coast for him on the late trip. The barrel was amongstsome pine trees. The Maori, whom he would not know again, showed witness the barrel about 11 p.m., when he arrived back from New Plymouth. Replying to Mr. Tate, witness said the beer was some yards from the road. He went and had a look at the barrel, to find its size and ho had no room on the bus for it.

Constable Brenchley, of Rahotu, said the -matter was reported to him on December 28. Sergeant Martin had taken a statement from Dickson, who said he had purchased the barrel. Dickson had admitted telling Sole that he brought the barrel from the brewery. Witness had been told that the barrel had been left at Waho Komene’s, one and a-half miles away from the hotel. Witness searched the place, but could not find it.

Cross-examined, witness said accused had told him the beer had been drunk on the Hoani Road 20 or 30 yards from Komene’s. He was surprised at the frank statement given by Dickson.

Mr. Bennett said he was prepared to admit that about this time defendant did not purchase beer from the brewery. Mr. Bennett, in opening his defence, protested emphatically at the action of the police in asking for an adjournment, Unless they were taken by surprise at the line of the defence, which they could not suggest they were in this case, they should be prepared to stand or fall by the evidence or ask for the adjournment before the commencement of the case. In cases in which the conduct of the licensee might be the subject of severe criticism the police should be even more careful as the licensee had so much at stake. He thought the application was calculated to do three things which would require careful scrutiny—it might lead to witnesses committing perjury, colouring the evidence, or making it suit the case of the licensee. Only a slight alteration in the time of th® alleged offence was needed to make the case black against the accused. The whole case from the licensee’s point of view bred great distrust and suspicion, and it was not to be wondered at if, having found himself in a mess, he took steps to protect himself. ATTITUDE OF LICENSEE. Counsel contended that Bullock’s own conduct and evidence was the strongest possible reply to the police case. For him to tell the court that on the Monday afternoon when he missed the beer he entirely overlooked the fact that at midnight 36 hours before he had been accosted by Sole was too ridiculous. Either Bullock deliberately concealed the midnight episode or else, owing to the condition he was in at or after that time he had forgotten it. If he had deliberately tried to conceal tfie twelve o’clock happening it lent unanswerable conviction to the defendant’s explanation that beer was sold to him by Bullock. If he had forgotten the episode, it was also possible he had forgotten the sale. Whichever alternative was correct, the licensee “was in a hole.” If later he said he remembered, selling the beer he was convicted of a serious offence, and it was most unlikely he would be honest enough to admit it if it were true. The first thing he should have thought of when he missed the beer was Sole’s asking him, at midnight on December 24, if it was all right for him (.Sole) to take it away. Either he had the “wind up” that the 15 men on Sole’s lorry knew about the beer leaving tlie vicinity of the hotel with his consent, or else he had forgotten. The court’s credence would have to be widely stretched to believe the latter. The true explanation, Mr. Bennett submitted, was that at midnight on December 24 Bullock knew he had sold the beer and allowed it to go unchallenged. In Sergeant Martin’s evidence he had said that Bullock denied seeing defendant at the hotel late at night or selling the beer, also the Sole episode until reminded. This was too ridiculous to be believed. It was also ridiculous for him to say that on Christmas Eve, when approached by Sole, he did not greatly concern himself with the matter, as the evidence had shown there were only two 10-gallon kegs at the hotel at the time. Mr. Bennett, continuing after lunch, i said that defendant would admit that I he had said he. procured the beer from

the brewery, but that was because he was desirous of protecting the hotelkeeper. Mr. Bennett submitted further that the barrel lost by Bullock had not been identified as the one in the case. The only barrel that defendant could be connected with was the one on Sole’s lorry, which Bullock said at the time did not belong to him. Outside Bullock’s denial of the sale there was no evidence against the defendant, except that of Cummings, whose evidence differed considerably from that of Hill’s. It was significant, too, that Cummings had not made any comment on what ho saw. If the evidence was reliable enough to convict a man on, why did not the licensee go to the police? The whole thing, he considered, savoured of a distasteful attitude on the part of the licensee. Counsel submitted that there was not sufficient evidence on which to base a charge of theft against defendant. There was, too, a possibility that the licensee may have forgotten the sale. It was certain that his conduct was not such as to inspire confidence. EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT. Henry Dickson, the defendant, stated that when Sergeant Martin and Constable Brenchley interviewed him at his house he told them how he had got the barrel of beer from Bullock. When they asked if he was telling the truth he told them he had another witness who could tell them how he got it. He told Sole the beer had come from the brewery because Bullock had asked him to keep it quiet and he did not want to get Bullock into trouble. Three Natives were with witness that afternoon, but the conversation and payment were done quietly. Senior-Sergeant McCrorie: Did you or did you not move the barrel of beer across the bar floor with your foot? Mr. Bennett said that it was for the police to prove defendant’s guilt, not for defendant to prove his innocence. In further cross-examination witness said he was quite sober at six o’clock, but he did not look round to see who was there, as be was enjoying himself the day before Christmas. Witness knew that the barrel had to be returned and he had arranged to pay for it if it were not returned. He knew that it was illegal for Bullock to sell the beer to defendant.

Senior-Sergeant McCrorie: You knew that it would be a good answer to a charge of theft to say that you had bought the beer? Witness said he had endeavoured to find the empty barrel, but as he could not had intended to pay for it. The magistrate asked why these Natives had not been brought to give evidence to clear defendant. Mr. Bennett said 'he would take the responsibility. After they had denied the matter to the police they would not be believed now.

Replying to the magistrate, the defendant said the Maoris had told him what they told the police, and they thought they might get into trouble if they were brought further into the matter.

This concluded the case for the defence, and the magistrate intimated that he would give his decision at 10.3'0 a.m. to-morrow.