BIBLE BEER AND BAD MEMORY.

NZ Truth, Issue 70, 20 October 1906, Page 8

BIBLE BEER AND BAD MEMORY.

•There, arc some rum statements made m Police Courts after osculation with a greasy bible. Whether the grease is responsible, or that it is due to the volume being dog-eared, or that the memories of witnesses run races round their skulls, the fact remains that a man is more truthful out of court than he is m it. Especially is this so m gambling and hotel prosecutions, and a recent case m which a pubbery was concerned may be cited m exemplification. An article appeared m "Truth" a few I weeks ago m reference to a shindy which occurred late at night after a social gathering at Ross, on the Coast. A young fellow named G ardiner had failed to admission to Robert's hotel, although there were others inside. He smashed m a window (or it was alleged he did), and four members of the Robert's family, including the mother and daughter, sprinted after G-ar diner, whom* they caught m his father's back yard, and they gave him a devil of a doing, Mrs Roberts displaying great prowess with an ironclad watertight boot. Pines for assaulting Gardiner followed, and now on top of that John Alexander Roberts, the licensee of the hotel, has been charged with selling liquor after hours, and with permitting gambling on the premises. Some of the evidence was quaint. One of the Gardiner family (John) called by the prosecution, admitted gaining access to the swill emporium after he left the social at midnight. EDo thought he had a drink of shandy. The bar was being attended to, and there were cards on the parlor table. Later _on he had more swankey, but no money was paid. Witness admitted that he had his full quantity that night, and didn't feel quite able to get home. Peter Hi&gins, who next smacked the book with both sides of his speaking orifice, said he wasn't playing cards. He sat at the table on which the cards were, though, and lie may have had some m his hand. He 'didn't know whether the others who were squatted round the rimu held cards m their maulers or not. Sublime ! Higgins said it was the first time he had entered the pub for a year, and he was asked m and treated by (I. Roberts. Another witness named Hirter was present, he, said— but his evidence was as vague as a lawyer's statement of claim. In the end Beak Achcson fined Roberts, after commenting on the unreliability of the evidence, and he made a few impolite remarks about the men who had caused the trouble, saying that they should be fined also. Had Acheson ordered that they be prosecuted for being on licensed premises after hours without excuse that could be brou srlit about very csaily.