POLICE COURT

Evening Star, Issue 22458, 1 October 1936, Page 7

POLICE COURT

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1. (Before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.) ALLEGED THEFTS. A young man, whose name was suppressed, was charged with the theft at Christchurch on divers dates of goods of a total value of £1 7s fid, the property of Salmon and Spraggon Ltd., and with the theft of other goods on dates between August 1 and September 30, 1936, of a total value of 14s 7d, the property of the same firm. He pleaded guilty to both charges. Cliief-detective Young said that the young man was until yesterday employed by Salmond and Spraggon Ltd., Dunedin. When he had left this firm it was ascertained that he had procured two bottles of veronal tablets. It was thought that he might use ;th© tablets, so the police were informed and a search of his room was made; the other goods then being revealed. The young man previously worked for the same firm in Christchurch, and had come to Dunedin about three months ago. , . - On the application of the chief-detec-tive the accused was remanded until October 8 to allow of full inquiries, being made. ‘ INTOXICATED MOTOR DRIVER. Matthew Duffy (52) appeared on remand charged with being drunk while in charge of a motor truck and with resisting Constable Wroblenski in the execution of his duty. He was represented by Mr R. King. Dr Evans said he examined the defendant at the station, and found ho had a staggering gait. His tongue was furred, and he smelt of alcohol. There was a tremor of both hands, and his pupils were equal, but were dilated, and did not react to light. His body swayed, with the eyes closed. He was excited and talkative,' and said that witness would say he was drunk whether he was or not. When witness allied him why he resisted arrest he said he believed in resistance, and repeated several times: “Resistance, resistance.” Witness formed the opinion that Duffy .was definitely suffering from intoxication. He was not in a fit condition to drive a car.- Witness also placed a stitch in- Duffy’s head where it was bleeding. ' „ , Dr W. H. Borne said he was called in to examine the defendant, at the station. He arrived as soon as he could, and at that time witness said' that Duffy was very excited —it was his nature—but he could have driven a car. Normally he had a peculiar-gait, and excitement would probably accelerate his gait. He smelt of liquor. The excitement might have been the result of his scuffle with the constable and hia Arrest Constable Wroblenski, who made the arrest, said he was on duty at the comor of the South, ro&d and BaTT street on Saturday , evening, when Duffy drove the truck into Lot street, where it was'stopped. Duffy and a friend walked toward an hotel, and when they returned witness got into the driver’s seat in the truck. Witness had noticed his condition, and went to him, telling him. that he was not in a fit state to drive., Duffy answered that ho was all right, and that he had-not had any drink that day. Just then a man named 0 Bnen came from a house and asked, witness if he would allow him (O’Brien) to drive the truck to Brighton and lot Duffy go. Duffy became annoyed and said to O’Brien to “Go on, drive the truck.” Witness thought it would, be unsafe to let him go with. O’Brien. Witness then decided to arrest him on a charge of being intoxicated while in charge of a car, but Duffy resisted violently, and was thrown to the footpath, where th© constable sat qn him. O’Brien came to witness’s assistance, who was unable to place the,handcuffs on his right wrist as he persisted in resisting. Witness then drew ms baton and struck him on the arms. Evidently one blow went astray and caught him on the head, as, blood was coming from it. Constable M'Dougall said that when Constable Wroblenski brought Duffy to the station tho latter smelt of drink and was muddled. Although, he wai handcuffed he, still tried to resist. Witness communicated with Dr Evans, who cam© to the station ttf make tho examination. ' Constable Harvey also gave evidence regarding Duffy’s condition when he was brought to the station. Mr King stated that although tuo police evidence would appear overwhelming against him, Duffy maintained that he had had only two drinks , that day. If Duffy were placed in tho box now, one might form the impression from his speech that he was drunk, such was its nature. Counsel gave a detailed account of, Duffy’s movements on Saturday, stating that when he was supposed to be drunk he actually carried out certain repairs to his truck. ...

Evidence 'was given by the defendant, and Mrs Catherine Beaumont, at whose house the defendant called on Saturday evening, when he did not smell or liquor. The Magistrate stated that the evidence showed there was something that attracted Constable Wroblenski’s attention when Duffy drove past, while the evidence given by the other two constables that" he was when brought to the station had remained unshaken.

It was definite that when Constable Wroblenski saw him, Duffy was intoxicated.

Sergeant O’Shea pointed out that Duffy had previously been convicted on a charge of being intoxicated while in charge of a car. On the charge of driving while intoxicated Duffy was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended for a day or two to allow the defendant to make arrangement* for the maintenance of his farm. He was prohibited from driving for two years. He was convicted and dia> charged on the second count.