SUPPLYING A NATIVE.

King Country Chronicle, Volume V, Issue 378, 15 July 1911, Page 5

SUPPLYING A NATIVE.

CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE. W. O'Brien, carpenter, Te Kuiti, was charged at the Magistrate's Court on Thursday with supplying liquor to John Hetet, Jun., a native. Mr G. S. Finlay appeared for accused, and pleaded not guilty. Constable Mathew deposed that on the 21st June, about 9 p.m. he saw the defendant and J. Hetet, Jun., leave Aldred's billiard room and proceed to premises at the back of Blackman and Cobb's in occupation by O'Brien. Defendant was considerably under the influence of liquor. Both went into the workshop. After some conversation, O'Brien took down a hag that was hanging on the wall. Defendant said to Hetet: "Will you have some of this." Hetet replied that it was a brand he didn't smoke. "Well would you like a whisky, Jack." said O'Brien, to which Hetet replied that he would not mind. Hetet had a drink, and after a little talk said he was going home, but before doing so O'Brien insisted in making Hetet have another drink. They afterwards returned to the billiard room half an hour later O'Brien went with three Europeans to his workshop. Witness saw them all having a whisky. By Mr Finlay: Witness was behind the billiard room when he saw defendant and Hetet go to the workshop. He followed them. Witness could hear the conversation distinctly. The door of the workshop was slightly ajar, through which opening he saw Hetet drink the whisky. He also saw one European drinking whisky out of a saucer.

John Hetet, Jun., said he did not know the defendant. He did not accompany him tj the workshop. Constable Mathew: I will have to treat this man as a hostile witness MrFinlay: I intend calling Hetet as a witness for the defence. The matter is a case of mistaken identity, your Worship. Constable Mathew: There's no mistake about it. After a considerable amount of examination and cross examination, witness gave a complete denial to the Constable's allegations. William O'Brien, carpenter, and defendant, remembered the night in question. He arrived in Aldred's billiard room about twenty minutes to eight. He shortly afterwards got into conversation with a young man named Russell. They talked about patents, and at witness's invitation Russell and he proceeded to tthe workshop to inspect a patent ice chest. After talking about the matter witness asked Russell what tobacco he smoked, and he replied "Light Havelock." Witness took a bag from the wall and gave Russell a tin. They were in the workshop about half an hour, after which they returned to the Billiard room. Witness played billiards until nearly ten o'clock. Witness did not know Hetet by name. He was sober on the night in question.

David Russell gave corroborative evidence, and in reply to Constable Mathew admitted that it would scarcely be possible to take him for Hetet. He was wearing an overcoat of a light colour, which would resemble the coat worn by Hetet. His Worship, in giving judgment, said that the story of the prosecution was a consistent and detailed narrative of what the Constable saw. It was possible that the Constable might be mistaken as regards O'Brien being drunk. The defence was an absolute denial of all the allegations. The defence, might be true, but it was possible that it referred to another night. He had suspicions about the alibi set up. It was difficult to suppose that the Constable should invent such a detailed narrative. What would be his object? It was of no interest to him to secure a conviction ad he was doing that every day. The Constable had his duty to do and there was no inducement for him to tell the Court what was not true. The evidence for the prosecution was uncorroborated. The evidence for the defence was corroborated. A possible explanation was that it was a fraudulent alibi but there was no proof. It was with great reluctance that he was compelled to dismiss the case. He had grave doubt about giving effect to fraudulent defences.