THE TARANAKI HOTEL CASE.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 13738, 29 August 1908, Page 4

THE TARANAKI HOTEL CASE.

APPLICATION FOR. REHEARING. | ! — »— — J I ■ ' 111 the Magistrate's Court this morning, before Mr. Fitzherbert, S.M., an application was made for a rehearing of the charge against George Bwhop, licensee of the Taranaki Hotel, of per- < initting drunkenness on June 13th. : Mr. Quiltfani made the application on belialf of the/ police, and Mr. Grey j appeared for the defendant. , j Mri Quilliam -explained that on] August 18th his Worship was asked; to grant a rehearing of.thfe case, but objection was taken to' the application on the grounds 'that there had been delay and that the new evidence which it was alleged had ' been discovered was not before his Worship on affidavit. The application had been adjourned~to enable the affidavit tD be prepared, and tins had now been received. On this affidavit he asked for a rehearing of the case. ' ■ The affidavit was made by Mary O'Donnell, barmaid, now of Dunedui. She declared that on June,- 13th she was employed at the Taranaki Hotel, and on that day Bishop brought into the private bar, of which she was in charge, a man who was drunk and whom she would have refused to serve on that account had not Bishop been present. Another man who was present also showed signs of intoxication. They were in the bar from 10 to 12; "o'clock, and Bishop was in and out during- the" whole of the morning. Mr. Grey said there were' two points in the affidavit that had to be considered:—(l) Had the police used the diligence necessary? (2) Was this evidence, now before the" Court for the first time"*, such as his Worship should grant a rehearing tipoii? Mr. Fitzherberfe said of course he was bound by the rules with regard to new trials. Two matters he nad to be satisfied upon:— (1) That the new evidence could not oe- procured by proper diligence at the time of the first trial, and (2) that this additional evidence was such as was likely to alter his decision. * Mr. Grey, addressing the Bench, said ihe question of delay was a most ii m ~ portant factor to be considered. It Was* alleged that. on, ' June 13 a certain offence", was committed by the licensee of the Taranaki Hotel. Want'of knowledge of the offence could hardly be alleged—by the prosecution,, for the sergeant of police himself was a witness ' and presumably s knew of whafj had happened, *at the time, but the first steps* taken by the pohfce, we'Fft taken on July* 6, when an information was laid by Constable Mclvor, who was also present on June 13th. On the day appointed for the hearing there was a temporary adjournment until the next day, as his Worship was unable to be present. On the following day the sergeant' of police applied for an adjournment, which he' (Mr. Grey) opposed, but which was granted, Mr. Quilliam being away on the business of the New Plymouth Harbour Board in Wellington. The case came oh again a week o* so " later; -*pt a further adjournment was applied for on ' the ground that Russell was not >to hand. This, too, waV grafted;- and eventually tho case came on, for hearing on July 29. Now it must be evident to his Worship^ with the policy of tho law which led to a rigid inspection of hotels in these days, that the police had the- ready means of ascertaining what was happening in and about those licensed premises on that day. He would cajl evidence to show that it was known the barmaid yt&b going to Dunedin and that if the police had inquired they could have- obtained^* toer- address from Mr. Bishop. He "would .point out thai the whole policy of the law was opposed to delays of this kind, and in a case such afi~*his it was monstrously unfair to the defendant fc> delay so long before laying aa information and then to try and, draw out the proceedings to such great length by railing to take such steps as a due sense of one's responsibility would suggest. He submitted that the delay was such as did not entitle the prosecution to the relief asked for, as the evidence was easily obtainable at the time of the original hearing. "- -- 1 ! George Bishop, sworn;.. said no inquiry had ever been made by. the police as to where the girl had gone* He

Sre for Dunedin was discussed. H» believed there were two policemen pre"wltaL. acfded that the^two boardgs were in tue private bar on Ab. Jgth. He would swear that Dr. MfcUelanrl was not drunk on June 13th. W did not think he had ever .«*» * statement contrary to that he nov swore to. On the Monday after Jun* 13 he remembered having an »»«£, view with Mrs. McCleland. . She said , something about her husband being at the hotel. -• „ "Did she complain that you were harbouring her husband in your hotels^ '•I dare say that was the real object °* "Did* you not tell her her husband was drunk on the previous Saturday and that you put him to bed to keep him out of the way?" ' •'1 hive no recollection ot itf "Will you deny that you told MrsMcCleland that her husband was drunk and that you put him upstairs out of the way?" ' "I have no recollection, of ever havm^'lf Mrs. McCleland swore that, would you be prepared to say she was committing perjury?" "I would not swear that I did not say so. .Mrs. McCleland would perhaps irem&mber better than X .did what I said I have no^ recollection of it... Mr. Quilliam was continuing Jus, cross-examination when Mr. l*re*. opjecSd, on the ground,*hat Mr. Qudham was going over the/ whole, evidence ag Mr.' Fitzherbfert agreed with Mr. Grey, and said the Question before. tfle Court was the application for »'***. hearing on the affidavit now producedi Mr Quilliam said he did not wish, to press the point. The witness could prove that the barmaid was a respectable girl, and not likely to commit PG There' was a long legal argument as regards the procedure in applications for rehearings of both civil and criminal cases, numerous authorities being citefl by counsel on either side. His 'Worship, in summing up, said with regard to the first point he was Clearly of opinion that the evidenco now adduced was procurable at the tnno the case was heard. It seemed to him at the trial astonishing that tno evidence of the barmaid was not secured. She was one of the first wit- ' nesses he expected to be caUed for the police. The sergeant of police ana Constable Mclvor were on the premise* at the time the alleged offenoe inn committed at 9 o'clock, and he should have thought the very first thing tb*y would have done would be to make inquiries from the barmaid jkboutxtn© matter. They did not seem/ to havo done so, however. So far } as toe.Affidavit was concerned, he saw^ nothing in that that would be likely t6 alter his decision in* the first qase, and therefore the application* before him rausb be refused- . ,