TEA IN BEER BOTTLES.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3725, 3 December 1927, Page 1

TEA IN BEER BOTTLES.

ALLEGED HOAX ON POLICE. If the story of one of the principal witnesses in a ease heard in the Magistrate’s Court at Hastings last week proves to be true, the Hastings police have been the victims of a most extraordinary hoax (says an exchange). Donald Hugh McLeod, licensee of the Hastings Hotel, and Athol Griffiths, his horse-trainer, appeared before Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M., to answer certain charges made under the Licensing Act. They were also concerned in certain charges in regard to the liquor two or three weeks ago, and in that case both were convicted as having been guilty of the offences charges. Last week McLeod and Griffiths, for whom Mr. E. J. Hallet appeared were concerned in charges in whirh in McLeod’s case were based on the allegations that he had sold liquor after hours and had supplied liquor to an intoxicated person (Griffiths). In! Griffiths’ case the charges were based on allegations that he had obtained liquor from McLeod after hours. 'For three hours the court was occupied in hearing police witnesses while Mr. Hallett outlined the defence, and Griffiths gave evidence. The evidence of the police described how a constable had seen Griffiths going out of the hotel and how, after being asked what he had been doing there, he was found to have two bottles of beer in his coat pockets. Mr. Hallett’s tone in addressing the magistrate and Me-. Leod’s demeanour as'he sat beside Mr. Hallett gave one no suspicion that they had any idea of the anti climax that was to come. Indeed therp is nothing more certain than that neither had any such suspicion For example, Mr. Hallett, when asked at the opening of the case whether he would admit that the two bottles which were in court, contained beer said he would, and afterwards actually told the magistrate that he had no idea of the surprise that was to come. About three o’clock Griffiths was giving evidence, when Mr. Hallett asked him: “What is in the bottles'?” “Tea,” the witness said. Mr. Hallett sat down and there was a stir in the court. “So this is a hoax?” asked Inspector Cummings, “Yes,” replied the witness. Further questions and answers drew from Griffiths a story that a.ftp being convicted previously he set out to decoy the police. He filled two or three bottles with tea a few nights before he was taxed with committing the offence with which he was then charged. He knew the police were watching him and he set out to catch them, his chief desire being to hoax Constable O’Neil, who had been one of the principal witnesses against him in the previous case. He had deliberately put the bottles of tea in his pocket and had acted in such a way as to arouse the suspicions of the police, who, he knew, had been watching him closely.

When this story was told the court was adjourned so that the contents of the bottles could be properly examined. Before the adjournment the bottles were passed round the court for inspection, and the general impression after examination seemed to be that they contained tea and nothing but tea.