ARE THEY QUITE BLAMELESS OVER HERE ?

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XVI, Issue 938, 27 February 1908, Page 22

ARE THEY QUITE BLAMELESS OVER HERE ?

We have had occasion to comment several times on the manner in which the police give their evidence in licensing cases (says the Melbourne “ Sporting News”), and also on the tendency of certain magistrates to give full weight to police evidence and little, if any, to that offered by defendant. In view of this, it is satisfactory to note the attitude taken by Judge Moule in a recent case affecting a transfer in South Melbourne. A constable, in giving his evidence, stated that he had been obliged to burst the bar door open, because the licensee and her husband refused to open it. In cross-examination, however, it transpired that the licensee stated she had lost the key, and advised the constable to break the door open. Judge Moule resented this palpable attempt to mislead the Court, and expressed the opinion to the constbale as follows: —“I want to say this for your guidance—that when giving evidence, no matter how keen you are

to support the observation of the Licensing Act, or any other Act, the Court resents very much your giving evidence which is not the whole evidence. You gave a wrong impression when you gave evidence about bursting the door open; it had a great effect on the mind of the Court, and we find matters to be quite different.” A lot of our constables, and higher officers in the force as well, should take this rebuke from the Bench to heart.