THREE CHARGES

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, 23 November 1927, Page 5

THREE CHARGES

HASTINGS LICENSEE - CASE BEFORE MAGISTRATE. A SENSATIONAL TURN. Three charges were preferred against Donald Hugh McLeod, licensee of the Hastings Hotel, at the Magistrate’s Court, Hastings, this morning when Mr. A. M. Mowlem, 8.M.. presided He was charged with opening his premises tor the sale of liquor on November 2; selling liquoto Athol Griffiths, and selling liquor to a person already intoxicated. Arising out of the above charges Athol Griffiths was charged with being on licensed premises after hours All four charges were dealt with together. Mr. E. J. W. Hallett appeared on behalf of both defendants, who pleaded not guilty. Inspector Cummings conducted th* prosecution while Mr. F. J* Kelly watched the proceedings on behalf of the Public Trustee as owner of the hotel. Constable Flannery, of Napier, stated that he was on night duty in Heretaunga street on the night in question. He was standinn at the railway crossing in company with Constable Murray, of Napier. Wit ntss saw the night porter of the Hastings Hotel leave the building; then, as he was returning witness Saw Griffiths leave the hotel and walk quickly towards witness. When be saw the constable he halted, and put his head out of the door and saw witness when he was approaching Griffiths. Witness asked, "What were you doing in the hotel." He said “I was not in there.” Witness then asked Griffiths what lie had in his pockets and Griffiths replied “Nothing.” Witness said be was going to search Griffiths, who preferred to go to the station. Here. Constable O'Neill was present and the two bottles of beer (produced) were found in Griffiths’ clothes. There was a denial that the beer came from the hotel and no explanation as to where the liquor came from was given. Griffiths was under the influence of liquor and witness had Griffiths under observation twentv minutes before he came out of the hotel. When Griffiths would give no information witness took him to the hotel where the door was opened by the night porter. When spoken to McLeod stated that Griffiths was not on the premises. Witness said “He had two hotties in his pockets," and McLeod stated “He did not get them from here.” Sernt. Hogan appeared «s this conversation took place and witness reported the whole of the facts. Sergeant Hogan asked Griffiths what he was doing in the hotel but Griffiths denied being in the hotel. McLeod, pointing to a place just inside the Heretaunga street door, said "He was just there.” Speaking about the beer to Griffiths Sergeant Hogan said: “You had enough trouble over the lasf trick." The Sergeant asked where he got the liquor but Grsffiths would not say where he got it as he did not want

to get anyone into trouble Returning , to the station Griffiths admitted he had been in the hotel office He snoke about a racehorse, owned by McLeod, that he was gome to ride the following morning. Earlier in the evening witness saw Griffiths with three friends and at that time he did not have any liquor in his possession. Griffiths said to witness “Pop-off” but witness replied if he, had stayed until sunrise Griffiths would not get a drink. Griffiths then moved off. Witness and Constable Murray then walked towards the ’bus stand and it was just after they reacned the crossing that Griffiths came out of the hotel. To Mr. Hallett witness stated that he and Constable Murray were standing in full view of both doors of the hotel. One door was open until 10 p.m.

Mr. Hallett: McLeod closed the door later?—les. Did he see you?—He couldn’t mis« me.

1 suppose McLeod closed up tor the night?—l don't know about the night part of it. Uh! your suspicious?—Well anything might happen m a city. Continuing, witness told Mr. Hal. Jett that Griffiths, on coming out of the hotel, went straight towards witness. When Sergeant Hogan was present McLeod did make some reference to Griffiths riding a racehorse the next day. Constable Murray, of Napier, gave corroborative evidence. Witness considered that Griffiths was visibly under the influence of liquor. Sergeant Hogan also corroborated the latter part of the evidence. To Mr. Hallett, witness admitted that the story told was that Griffiths went, to talk to Mcfjeod about the races This closed the case for the prosecution.

CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. For the defence. Mr. Hallett submitted that the police had to fully prove their case as in such cases the consequences were very grave. In this particular case, the facts so far brought forward justified the proceedings. The defence was that Griffiths did not buy she liquor from the hotel and that he was employed as a trainer by McLeod who was a ( racehorse owner. Griffiths went to MeLeod to tel] him that a trial run would be held early in the morning. There were two factors to be con sidered: firstly. McLeod had. but a few weeks ago. been up before the court and he must have known that to sell liquor would have ruined him. It was unlikely that a man would take that risk. The other factor was the fact that Griffiths walked out of the hotel in the equivalent to broad daylight, into the arms of the constables and vet McLeod made no effort to recall Griffiths. Counsel submitted that Griffiths had had ths liquor in his possession when -eon early in the evening by the constable. The liquor was to have been taken to the stables. It was ndmirte-’ that Griffiths “shuffled” at the police station because he had an instinctive idea that by giving no satisfactory answer he would help someone else. The court at Qiis stage adjourned for luncheon. A SENSATIONAL TURN. The first witness upon resumption was Athol Griffiths? who detailed the events lending up to the time he was taken to police station. Mr. Hallett: You left the bottles at the station I suppose?—Yes.

Those are the two bottle you took from your home? Yes—but they don’t contain beer.

What! Then what is in them?— Tea.

His Worship: Mr. Hallett you have admitted that they contain intoxicating liquor. Mr. Hallett: I know’that, Sir. To witness: You say it is tea?— Yes.

Inspector Cummings: When did you evolve this ingenious schemp about these two bottles?—A Sunday prior to November 2. Whv were you taking tea to the stables?—l knew I was being followed. When did you fill them with ten ? —on the Sunday prior to November Whet sort of tea?—l made it at home. After filling the bottles what did vou do with them?—Put them under the mattress. Why there ?—So that nobody else would take it When you went out did you take the black tea out with you?—Yes, on one occasion. Where did you an ?—Up town Who did yon think was following •roti ?—I thought it was Constable O’Neill. ONLY A HOAX. Then it was only a hoax?—Yso. Vou are serious in all this?—Yes Why did you go into the hotel ?— Because I thought 1 was being foliowed. You didn’t know actually where the constable was when you went into the hotel?—No. not exactly. His Worship: I suppose you think you are frightfully smart?—No. not now

His Worship: I am glad to hear vou say that much. Tn asking that the bottles h* opened counsel for the defence (Mr Hnllvtt) said: “This is the first knew about it.” The case was adjourned until the liquor had been anlysed.