HOSTILE WITNESS

Hokitika Guardian, 12 November 1930, Page 3

HOSTILE WITNESS

POLICE LET DOWN.

LICENSING CHARGES

\By Telegraph—Press Association >

WELLINGTON, November 10

Admission by the police that they had been “let down” by a hostile witness for the prosecution was made in the Police Court when charges were preferred against the l.censee and porter of the New Zealand Hotel. The Magistrate, Mr T. lb McNeil, reserved liis decision on a point of law. Cissie Myra Brough, the licensee, was charged with selling liqour alter hours and also with opening the hotel for the sale of loqour after hours. Joseph Twidle porter, was charged with supplying liquoi unlawfully. Mr McGrath entered a plea dl not guilty on behalf of both defendants. Sub-Inspector Lopdell, in outlining the case for the police, sa.d that on October 7 a man named Arthur Smithers paid 15s for a bottle o*' whisky in the bottle store of the botei. He said he would call fur it next day, when he was to be married. Next day Smithers called at the hotel at fi.3o p.m. He saw a man at the door and was referred to the porter Twidle. Upon Smithers telling him . of the purchase the previos day, Twidle returned with the bottle. Sergeant Cleary saw Smithers leaving the hotel, and accosted him, following which he entered the hotel and made inqu lies.

Sergeant Cleary gave evidence in regard to his visit to the hotel. Mrs Brough and Twidle both said the whisky had been purchased by Smith--I,r.s in the bottle -store the previous day. Mrs Brough added: “That is what we always do. It is quite legal.” Evidence was heard from Arthur Smithers, grocer’s assistant. Witness repudiated certain parts of a written statement made by him to the police and substituted other evidence for them. He denied under examination that any suggestion had been made to him by the parties in the case after he had been interviewed by the police, although lie had admitted that Twidle had come to see him, after the police interview to inquire what evidence he had given.

Sub-inspector Lopdell here asked that the witness he declared a hostile witness for the police, owing to his repudiation of evidence. Mr McGrath protested that the conduct of the sub-inspector was grossly improper. No man could give his evidence in a more stra ghtiforward manner than had Smithers. 1

“■J had already formed the impression before the -sub-inspector made application that the witness was somewhat hesitant in giving ev deuce on this matter,” said the Magistrate. “He also says he was seen by someone at the shop about the bottle of whisky, but lie does not say when it was. That, together with his hesitating demeanour, presents to my mind that this witness is not as frank as he might he, and in that case 1 think the sub-inspector is entitled ”

Mr McGrath: 1 object to any statement lie has made to the police being used as evidence against defendant in either of these eases.

Sub-Inspector Lopdell: 1 only intend to get him to endeavour to remember just what did happen. -Mr McGrath .submitted that there was no case for defendants to answer. ■ The Magistrate: I am not satisfied at the present time that there is any case to answer. I want to hear something more. Mr McGrath : I propose to call no evidence. The Magistrate: Very well. Mr McGrath remarked that the police had been “let down” in the case. He submitted that the Hotel had not been open for the sale of liquor, and that the sale was completed at the time Sinithers paid for the whisky ing open hours on the day previous to the date of the alleged offences. Twidle had no authority from the licensee to sell or deliver liquor at any time. Sub-Inspector Lopdell submitted it was shown by the attitude of Airs Brougli that Twidle had some authoritv. He frankly admitted he had been let down. The Magistrate reserved his decision. ,