A PECULIAR CASE

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 271, 12 August 1919, Page 9

A PECULIAR CASE

POLICE ACTION FAILS

ROUGH-AND-TUMBLE IN,AN OFFICE

When is a man drunk? This question has often been asked, find it formed tho basis of ft chnrgo hoard before All'. E. Pago, S.M., at tho Magistrate's Court yesterday, when " "William. Herbert Brewer, for whom Air. 0. Boero appeared, defended an allegation of having boon found drunk in Willeston Street on Saturday, August 2. Acting-Sub-lnspector Emerson said bhht on tho dato in question Brewer anil a mail mined Isaacs went into tho office of tho "Wellington Steamship Company. Both moil were under tho inlluenco of liquor, and woro asked lo leave. They relused to go and tho police had to be oallcd in. When Brewer was put outside ho was in such a condition that Constable Graham placed him ' v.udor arrest. Isaacs was not so drtlnk as defendant.

Frederick Hill, manager of tho Wellington Stoanisliip. Company, Ltd., ' 111 King's Chambers, stated that- lato on tho afternoon of Saturday, August 2,' defendant and a man named Isaacs came to the office. The.y had no right to be there' and were both drunk, Brewer being the worst of tho two. Witness, asked them about a dozen times lo leavp, but they would not do so. Brewer becamo excite<l and started to ransack- tho papers in tho office. Mr. Dunn, head of the firm, was Mint for, and when ho arrived ho asked the two men to leave, but they again refused to go away. During tho course of the argument Brewer locked himself in tho office, but finally ho openod tho door and was eventually ■ejected.- Tho witness said that Brfewer was dismissed by Dunn in April last. Whilst he was in the office, Brewer produced a paper with tho words "W. 11. Brewer, shipping agent," on it, and this he affixed to the door. Witness look the notice down.- Isaacs remarked to ■defendant that' ho- would get them into troublo if ho continued to behave in tho maimer ha was doing. Both mon said they woro going to take possession of the office.

In reply to Mr. Beere,' witness maintained tliat lie was appointed manager of tliQ company in October, 1918. Brcwc.r had no business in the office as witness understood that his interest in the company'had been disposed of. Dofendaiit was paid ss. per day for going to the harbour to pee that tho steamer Iluin was all right. His Worship: On what ground do you baso your opinion that Brewer was drunk"? ;

"Witness: Ho was not steady on hi* feet, lie looked drunk and acted liko a drunken man. ' Brewer and the Company, Alexander Dunn, barrister and solicitor, managing director of the Wellington and Taranaki Steamship Company, stated, that when ho was called to t.ho offieo on August 2 he noticed that Brewer was docidedly drunk. Isaacs wi'ks aiiso uildor tlio iliituence of liquor. Both men were requested to leave, but they refused. Eventually Isaacs wont out, but Brewer struggcld with the police and resisted arrest. Neither man had any right in the office. Prior to February, IJIB, Brewer was owner of tho Uiu'a, but after that the unsecured creditors took possession of thosiyessel. In October, after receivors J -1 been put in, nil inc. poratcd company v.,a formed lo run the -company's two vessels and Brewer was kept on .as clerk, but ho was dismissed at the end of March or tho beginning of April of the present year. Crass-examined by Mr. JBeere, witness 'said that when tho Wellington Shipping Company was formed in October last liic boats were registered in Brewer's name. .Witness considered that, he, and riot Brewer, was the nominal owner of the shares in tho company.

Mr. Beeru: You held thorn as security for your niorlgagoP Witness:. There was nothing in writ-

ing. Constable praham and Ac ting-Sergeant Cattanachj who wore summoned to the King's Chambers on August 2, both declared that .Brewer was drunk. Graham .said .that Brewer..claimed that, the .office' Vas liisi but witness asked-him to leav quietly. Brewer would not go and; wanted to light .witness. Witness said flic, defendant was "lighting drunk." Mr. Duiui had informed witness that Brewer had no right in the office, and it was for that reason that ho was put out. When ho was ejected into tho street Brewer was arrested.

Constabie Drouigool, _ watch housekeeper nt the Central-Police Station, said that when brought to tho station Brewer was drunk. Similar evidence was given by Plata Clothes Constable Tricklebank.

Mr. Beero contended that the. charge oould not succeed as the police, who were officers of the Court, had no power to eject Brewer into the public street and then arrest him on a chargo of drunkenness. .Of course, it was denied that Brewer was drunk. His Worship said that if counsel intended to rely on that point lie >"bu!d tako timo to consider it, but he was prepared to hear ovidenco as to llrowor's condition. , ■ Frank Young, locksmith, employed at tho King's Chambers, said ho .witnessed .tho affair on. August 2, and gave it asliis opinion that Brewer was not drank. Defendant's Story. . Brewer stated that he first took tho officos in tho King's Clutmbers about eighteen months ago, when ho carried on business in. his own name, and in tho name of the Wellington Steamship Company. On August. 2, when ho was arrested, ho had two-thirds interest in the company. He had not surrendered tho koys of the office, in which wore a number of his papers. Witness wont to the ofiico on August 2 beeauso ho heard that somebody elso was going to take possession. Accompanied by. Isaacs: he went, into the office and said to Hiil that ho heard other people wero coming in. Ho told Hill that ho intended to put his papers on one side, but Hill said ho had no right there and that Dunn had stated the polico were to bo sent for if he frequented the place. Hill called in a policoman, who, when ho heard what the trouble was ahoul, refused to tako any action and went' out. This officer mado no suggestion about witness being drunk. tjubsc-q-uontly, two other policemen came in, and Dunn said to one of them, "This man is drunk." Ono of the police said to witness that he was drunk and told him that he would have to get our. Witness declined to go, and warned the police and tho others that there would bo trouble if they attempted to shift him. Whon tho polico tried to get hold of him he made, no attempt to strike anyone, but just tried to keep them oft". As a result of the treatment the p.olic meted out to him he felt "dono," and this might have given Inm tlie appearance of being drunk. When lie arrived at tho polico station ho asked that a doctor should be summoned to examine him as to his sobriety, but the police absolutely refused to comply with Ins request. Witness concluded by affirming that the oilico was his. In answer to Actmg-Sub-Inspcctor Emerson, witness admitted having had four whiskies on the- day in question— one after ho left the Athletic Park. Ho said that after he unlocked the door o, tho office he saw four policemen. Inspector Emerson; there were only "witness: I say there were four. Inspector Emerson; How big was the last whisky you had? Witness: Just an ordinary ono. Inspector Emerson: Oh, I. see. Well, then, what made you. see four policemen when there were only two? Tho witness replied that ho was sure there were four present when ho opened Inspector Emerson: What about enbracing the policeman at the watch'UWitness: It is an absolute lie, I did no such tiling. Julga-r Isaacs stated that lie accompanied Brewer to the office, ho having told defendant that new people were going to take the place over. Up tilSaturday last, witness was employed a.-, n clerk by the. Wellington Steamship Company. Witness considered that Brewer had a right- to the office, and before August 2 .no attempt had been maiie to put him out. When he went to tl' ofiico Brewer was perfectly sober, but lie looked wild and haggard when put into tho motor-oa.l'. W'tness did not have to be put out of the office, so he did not observe the alteration which

took place there. He wailed outside, and when aslted to go to tho police elation ho did so. tie also was with drunkenness, although he considered that ho was perfectly sober—but ho did not appear before tho Court and was lined 10s. / Information Dismissed. His Worship said ho was not satisfied that tho defendant was drunk when arrested, and on thai account tho information would be dismissed. His up pea.ranco at tho ivatehhouso after iti-? struggle : with tho politu would no doubt, (jive tho constables at the station n wrong impression as to his normal condition. 'i'ho onus was on tiie prosecution to establish tho fact that detenu;;., was drunl;, and they had failed to do that, it was not necessary to go into the legal:point as to the powers 01 arrest of the police, raised by Air. lieere.