RAHOTU HOTEL INCIDENT

Taranaki Daily News, 28 April 1934, Page 9

RAHOTU HOTEL INCIDENT

■ SENSATIONAL ALLEGATIONS CHARGES AGAINST LICENSEE. REFERENCE TO OFFICIAL’S TACT. DISMISSAL OF ONE CHARGE. There were sensational allegations on both sides at the Magistrate’s Court at New Plymouth yesterday when Edwin Dudley Whittle, licensee of the Rahotu Hotel, was charged with wilful obstruction of Constable A. D. Ruston in the lawful execution of his duty, being allegedly drunk in a public place, Kahui Read, Rahotu, and as a licensee permitting drunkenness on licensed premises. Mr. J. H. Sheat, defending Whittle, entered a plea of not guilty on each charge, the last named of which was dismissed. Decision was reserved until to-day on the other two charges. It was alleged the offences occurred on March 15. Constable Ruston alleged that Whittle had jumped on his back and tried to screw his head, that a man named Elliot, New Plymouth, and Mrs. Mischefski had had to pull Whittle off, and that when he arrested Whittle and was taking him to the police station Whittle used bad language to him. Constable Ruston further alleged that Whittle had cried like a baby and pleaded to have the charges not laid. VZhittle said Constable Ruston had been white ' with temper, and he denied all the allegations, admitting only that he had called the constable a — mongrel. Day customers were not immune from the constable’s attentions, said Whittle. The constable would not listen to any explanation. Mr. Sheat alleged the people of Rahotu were getting sick of Constable Ruston’s manner. W. C. G. Green, a farmer and Dairy Control Board member, alleged lack of tact on tire part of Constable Ruston. CONSTABLE RUSTON’S STORY. Constable A. D. Ruston said that at 6.10 p.m., having checked the time by the post office clock, he visited the Rahotu Hotel. He saw the doors leading to the bar wide open. Fred Kahui, Peter Fleming, Tim Mason, James Mitchell (Rahotu) and'a man named Elliot, New Plymouth, were around the bar counter drinking. Fred Kahui was drunk, waving his arms and in a fighting attitude. Whittle was leaning against the •> counter and appeared to be under the influence of liquor. Whittle pulled himsel. together when he saw witness enter, said Constable Ruston. He told Whittle it was after closing time and started to enter in his notebook the names of those present." Whittle came from behind the bar counter and locked the door leading to the Main South Road. Before this was done some men had left the premises. While entering the names in his notebook, continued Constable Ruston, Whittle bumped into him. Whether deliberately or because Whittle was drunk he did not know. At the same time Whittle was singing into his ears and jostling him, with the result that he was unable to obtain the men’s names. Whittle locked the door leading to the passage and he was calling out that there was some liquor obtained elsewhere the previous night. All the men were under the influence of liquor. On making for the passage door Whittle got between him and the door and refused to get out of the way. He tried to open the door but. Whittle persisted in preventing him. He pushed Whittle aside, Whittle shouting in his ear that “he was too hard.” “JUMPED ON HIS BACK.” When he got into the passage Whittle jumped on his back and tried to screw his head round. He freed himself after some little time with the help of Elliot and a waitress. VZhittle followed him on to Kahui Road. He then saw Whittle was drunk and arrested him. He put the usual police hold on Whittle and took him to the police station. On the way Whittle called him various obscene names. Whittle had these expressions “off pat” and resisted violently. At the police station Whittle was crying like a baby—in fact he was crying drunk, proceeded Constable Ruston. Whittle started to plead with him to let him go on account of his wife and family. The struggling had sobered Whittle considerably. Witness was unable to find the lock-up key, and in view of Whittle’s improved condition he decided to release him and prosecute him on summons. Whittle left the premises but returned later and wanted to “make friends.” Whittle asked him not to report the matter as he would lose his license. Later Whittle accosted him on the Main South Road and asked him to drop the matter. Mr. Sheat: How long have you been stationed at Rahotu? Constable Ruston: Fourteen months. How long has Whittle been licensee?— I could not say. You have never bothered to inquire?— No. Are you really serious when you say you do not know how long Whittle has been licensee?—Yes. You would not deny he has been licensee for five years?—No. It might have been ten. This is the first occasion VZhittle has been before the Court on any charge in respect of the hotel?—As far as I know. You know now that he has'to leave the hotel?—l have heard that. He told you while these incidents were going on that he would have to leave?— I do not know, I could not say. What do you mean? Do you mean you cannot remember? _ f . How long were the incidents taking place, from the time you entered the bar, took Whittle to the station and let him go?—Half an hour. You were not discussing or arguing the whole time?—No. Then what was taking place?—l have told . you all I said. ' Are you sure about anything connected with the whole affair? —-Yes. This much is clear: At some stage after entering the hotel bar you informed Whittle in some way or another that you were going to charge him with some offence—l told him it was after closing time and that I was going to report the matter. , . Do you remember what your words were?—Yes. “It is after, six o clock. 1 am going to put you up. What did Whittle do in response:—He pulled himself together. He was waning against the counter unaer the influence of liquor. How do you know he was under tnc influence of liquor?-! have had 14 years experience. I ought to know. Very interesting. That is the stock police answer—lt was Whittles conduct, his manner and way of acting.. What do you refer to?—He was crying like a baby and swearing. He was not crying at that stage. What’ distinction do you draw between drunkenness and intoxication.— I am not very good at describing definitions of drunkc.nness. I quite appreciate that! When was Whittle drunk?—l knew for certain when I arrested him on Kahui Road. Whittle will say he immediately argued with you as to the question of the time. —That is wrong. When did he first speak to you.-There

had been a dance the previous evening and I think he thought I blamed him for supplying liquor for it. I did not want to hear about anything. That is just what Whittle complains of. You did not want to listen to anything. When you see a man committing an offence do you just go up to him and say "I am going to arrest you”?—I did not want to listen. ‘.‘PRETTY SICK OF IT.” And the people of Rahotu are getting pretty sick of it Of course you will not admit that. Why did you not listen to this man?—He was not in a fit condition to listen to. He was singing in my ear. Tenor or bass?—Tenor, I think. There were further incidents in the passage. Whittle is alleged to have jumped on your back. How far up?—He was riding me. The waitress, Elliot and Mason pulled him off my back. I carried him to the Kahui Road entrance on my back and saw he was drunk. Are you aware that this man has lost the sum of £4OOO in that hotel?—No. Was not the fact that he had been ruined and that you were publicly humiliating him the subject of his complaint that evening?—No. There was bad feeling between you? —No. I had always treated him as a good fellow. There was a case when you prosecuted a man for being illegally on the Rahotu hotel premises and the information was dismissed. Will you swear there was no conversation between Whittle and you after the case?—Yes. There was no ill feeling on the matter. My attitude is that if a man wins a case, good luck to him. Who is referred to in the charge of permitting drunkenness? —Fred Kahili. You did not try to locate Kahui with the intention of arresting him?—l had enough to do at the time. Is Kahui being charged with drunkenness? —No.

Senior-Sergeant Turner: Have you ever had to warn this man regarding closing at 6 p.m.?—Repeatedly. He seems to treat it as a joke. A clock he has in the bar is often six or seven minutes slow. , To the magistrate Constable Ruston said he had warned Whittle at various times and had tried to give him fatherly advice, but Whittle treated it all as The magistrate: What is his attitude when you give him this fatherly advice. Does he laugh or does he tell you to go to the devil?—He does not say anything. It seems to go in one ear and out the other. He has said I was too hard and . would be putting his family and him bankrupt on the street. He has blamed the customers and said he could not get rid of them. He thinks you persecute him?—That is what it amounts to. I cannot understand him thinking you persecute him if all you have done is to tell him to close his hotel on time. Have you gone so far as to say you would get him out of the hotel if he did not close on time?—No! Do you watch the hotel closely?—l live close and have to pass there but I never “pimp” on-him. His report to the Licensing Committee in 1933 was because of Whittle not closing at 6 p.m., added Ruston. MRS. RUSTON’S EVIDENCE. Beatrice Ellen Ruston, wife of Con-, stable Ruston, said she was lying in her bedroom when she heard someone crying and swearing. She saw a man lying on the platform outside the station office. She could only see the man’s legs. Her husband was searching his own pockets and then called to her to get the key. She could not find it and went back to the bedroom window to tell her husband. A man she believed to be named Elliot told her her husband had gone to the back of the premises. This man had told-her to tell her husband to “shake him up.” Whittle was crying and wanting to go home and said her husband was hard on him. Later Whittle returned to her house crying and when she opened the door he stumbled. He said he wanted to make friends. She told him he had better go. He had one foot inside the house then. Did Whittle say in which way your husband was hard on him? —No. He just said, “You husband is too hard on me.’ Sergeant S. G. Clist said he interviewed Whittle at Rahotu on March 20. Whittle said there had been trouble between Constable Ruston and him. Whittle stated he was prepared to put these complaints in writing if he got his (Sergeant Clist’s) assurance there would be no police proceedings. Whittle then said he could not see his way clear to make a written statement without the presence of his'- lawyer. In the presence later of Constable Ruston at the Rahotu police station Whittle said it was incorrect that Constable Ruston had arrested him on March 15 for alleged drunkenness but because of his wife and children had released him, to be brought up on summons. Asked why Constable Ruston had brought him to the station, Whittle said it was to show him up m front of the public and to teach him that he could not speak to him (Ruston) as he (Whittle) had that evening. ’ He admitted calling Constable Ruston a mongrel in the station grounds but not on the street. Whittle said Constable Ruston and he had shaken hands before he had left the station that evening. Whittle had said if he were prosecuted he would have to sue Constable Ruston for assault and wrongful an'est. Whittle said the cause of the trouble was that he and Constable Ruston had each lost his head. Whittle admitted he had had liquor that day but said he was not in any way drunk. Tliis concluded the prosecution. Senior-Sergeant Turner said that as the Court would appreciate the police were often left alone in breaches of the licensing act in country stations and had difficulty in getting outside evidence. DISMISSAL ASKED FOR. The charge of permitting drunkenness relating to Kahui and that of obstruction should be dismissed there and then, submitted Mr. Sheat on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the charges. The Court was asked to convict on the sole statement of the constable. The obstruction consisted solely of jostling, which the constable was unable to say was intentional or accidental. It was clear that the only conduct on the part of the licensee was jostling, and the constable had admitted that this did not prevent him doing anything as he knew all the names except one, which was given to him later in the evening by Whittle. As to the charge of permitting drunkenness, there was not a- tittle of evidence apart from that of the constable himself that Kahui was drunk, and he admitted that not one of the known tests had been applied to Kahui because there was no opportunity to do so. As to the charge of drunkenness against Whittle, it woul be desirable that he should be given the opportunity of explaining what led up to this unfortunate affair, which no one regretted more than Whittle. Whittle had lost £4OOO as the result of his occupancy of the hotel, and it was unfortunate that the occurrence should have happened when he was about to vacate it. Whittle had for some time realised his position in regard to his loss, and it had preyed upon his mind and affected his health. For some time he had had the impression that Constable Ruston wanted to get rid of him. On the day of the charges Whittle had had a hard day in the bar, conducting a hotel in a district like Rahotu being a difficult occupation. Constable Ruston had walked . m and without any preliminary warning had said, “It’s after 6. The hotel ought to be closed. I’ll put you all up for this.

Whittle said he attempted to, reason with | Constable Ruston but he would not listen , to a single word. Whittle would deny strenuously that he had leapt on the constable’s back, and would say that he had tried to hold Constable Ruston by the coat to get him to listen. He had followed Constable Ruston to the door, where he was seized and marched to the 0 police station. The events transpired substantially as related by Constable Ruston. It was the culmination of a series of circumstances which had led to the unfortunate outburst.

Before the luncheon adjournment the magistrate dismissed the charge of permitting drunkenness. He stated that the charge referred to the condition of Kahui. The constable said Kahui was drunk and he thought it highly probable that this was so, but it had not been The constable would have had his time occupied and he did not blame him for not confirming his estimate of Kahui’s condition.

Whittle in evidence said that when he tried to reason with Constable Ruston he would not listen but said “get away.” He did not jump on Constable Ruston’s back. The constable lurched him off his premise? into the road. Constable’ Ruston was white with temper, proceeded Whittle.

“I admit I broke down and called Constable Ruston - a — mongrel,” proceeded Whittle. “I said ‘You have humiliated me in front of everyone’.” Whittle said Constable Ruston had said to him at the police station, “Get out while the going is good,” or words to that Later he met Constable Ruston on the road and asked why he had taken him to the police station. Constable Ruston replied that he was drunk. He had told the constable not to be absurd and that he would get into touch with the inspector. Constable Ruston and he had spoken rationally together and they had shaken hands before parting. He had been left shorthanded in the bar that evening, the man who usually locked up being away. The first he knew was that Constable Ruston was in the bar taking names. The constable had not consulted him first,, and naturally he felt annoyed. Constable Ruston’s conduct to him had not been all that could have been desired of a police officer. One dance night a knock had come on the door. He had asked, “who’s there?” and the reply came “Reg.” When he opened the door he found it was Constable Ruston, who had given his barman’s name. He did not consider this legitimate tactics. The position now was that he had to get out of the hotel, and he had lost at least £4OOO, the amount he had paid to go in. He had completed a fresh lease and had hoped to carry on. Even his day customers were not immune from Constable Ruston’s attentions. There was an instance of this on the previous sale day, when Constable Ruston had ordered a Maori, with whom he (Constable Ruston) had previously had an argument on the police station premises, out of the hotel. This Maori was not drunk. “NO PIGGY-BACKING.” To Senior-Sergeant Turner Whittle said he had telephoned the post office at the time of the occurrence for the correct time. The actual time of the affair was 6.1 p.m. The post office clock had been four minutes fast and had been put back next morning. He had not “piggy-backed” the constable, nor had he screwed his head round. Do you not think it was because you had had too much liquor that this occurred?—l deny that emphatically. It was because of Constable Ruston’s attitude. He cannot even speak to anyone without losing his head. Why did he grab me by the throat? That is not the action of a sane man. I object to the filthy language alleged. I admit calling him a — mongrel. Anyone who knows my standing in the district is . aware I do not use balsphemous language. Not when you are normal! You admit you were crying like a baby?—l was crying. I was upset. You are suggesting Constable Ruston’s evidence is a pack of lies?—l am suggestion he is not telling the truth! Pearl Eileen . Mischef ski,’ waitress at the hotel, said VZhittle had just taken Constable Ruston by the coat lapel and had endeavoured to get him to listen, but the constable had refused to do so and. marched Whittle off to the police station. Whittle was absolutely not .drunk. He was excited. Senior-Sergeant Turner: . What about Constable 'Ruston’s statement that you helped to pull Whittle off his back?— That is an untruth. / / ” * Mrs. Mischefski said’ she had. heard Whittle tell the constable.. to keep his hands off his.throat. ; .. Thomas Collingwood Farquhar, manager of the Rahotu dairy factory for the past 11 years, said he was in the hotel at 5.55 p.m., when VZhittle was perfectly sober. He had known Whittle five years and never seen him the worse for liquor. Whittle was secretary of the hall committee and of the bowling club, of which he (Farquhar) was president, and was a respected resident of the district. Walter Clement Guy, Green, farmer, member of Dairy Control Board, chairman of the Egmont County Council and chairman of the Egmont Dairy Company directorate, said Whittle was highly respected not only as a hotelkeepebut also in regard to his public activities. He had never seen Whittle under the influence of liquor. “DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND.” Mr. Sheat asked Green if he were prepared to say anything regarding Whittle’s complaint that the constable was unreasonable. Green: I am afraid the constable is rather difficult to understand. He has a peculiar manner of approach. He lacks tact. He may be a good officer, but that is how/1 sum him up. At this stage Mr. Sheat handed in .:s as to Whittle’s character from s. George Gibson and T. P. Hughwiiom he said were with Green the vU-y justices of the peace at. Rahotu. Messrs. Gibson and Hughson were wellknown as total abstainers. Senior-Sergeant Turner asked Green to give an instance of the lack of tact on the part of Constable Ruston that he complained of. . Green replied that there was an instance, but it concerned a niatter which would probably come before the Court. Senior-Sergeant Turner: If it is about the motor-car you can mention it. Is this the only instance?—Yes. You will not tell the Court what it is?—l will probably have to later. That is hardly fair to the constable. He has a perfect explanation. Have you been before the Court before?—Not that I remember. You were charged at Eltham?—Yes, with driving without having my license w.ith me. You were charged with obstructing an inspector and it was withdrawn?—l was not charged. You were charged with both offences? —I said I was charged with only one. Anything that was withdrawn is no concern of mine. Oh, you know all about it, all right. You are at the hotel a good deal?—That is an insult. I hardly go there once in three weeks. In reply to the magistrate Green said the previous constable at Rahotu had been in poor health. It was possible that any trouble there wa the result of police control being tightened up. Reserving his decision until to-day on the charges of obstruction and drunken-, ness, the magistrate said that as in the case there were reflections on the conduct of a police officer it made it more necessary for him to consider the case carefully, and the terms in which he would deliver his judgment