"IT WOULD BE STRANGEST THING IN LIFE"

NZ Truth, Issue 1142, 20 October 1927, Page 3

"IT WOULD BE STRANGEST THING IN LIFE"

Magistrate Mowlem Has Yet To Discover Policeman Whose Word He Could Not Accept

BENCH REJECTS STARTLING ALLEGATIONS OF "A FRAME-UP"

POSSIBLY there is a policeman who ia-just as fallible as anyone else, but Magistrate Mowlem has still to discover him. • At the last sitting of the Hastings Magistrate's Court, the S.M. once again accepted a policeman's story against what amounted to an allegation by the defence that the constable in question was attempting to "frame" a licensee with whom he was not on good terms. During the hearing of the case the defence mentioned quite a number of startling statements alleged to have come from the lips of the policeman, but when reaching a decidedly interesting point they were ruled out by his worship. The case was one in which Donald Hugh McLeod, licensee of the Hastings Hotel, was charged with supplying liquor after hours and also with allowing his premises to be open for the sale of liquor during prohibited hours. . Arising out of the same. case, were charges of being on licensed premises after hours and also of assisting the licensee to commit the offence of having the hotel unlawfully opened; these charges were preferred against two well-known Hastings men, Reginald Honnor and Athol Griffiths. Lawyer A. L. Rogers appeared for the defence and pleaded not guilty to all counts. Inspector D. Cummings prosecuted. The inspector lost no time in getting down to business, and without any preamble called the chief witness, Constable J. O'Neill. The constable stated that shortly after midnight on September 16 he was walking past the Hastings Hotel when he heard a noise inside and a little later he saw a head appear through the door facing Railway Road. The constable waited and watched and next saw a motor-car turn from Market Street into Heretaunga Street, then into Railway Road, where it pulled up opposite the hotel. One Dozen Beer In another moment the door of the hotel opened and Constable O'Neill saw two men emerge from the side door. One of these men carried a suitcase and the pair went over to the car. The constable followed and found that the driver of the car was a man named Russell and the two who had left the hotel were Honnor and Griffiths. He asked them w^iat they were doing, and the repjy by Honnor was to the effect that they were the guests of McL t eod. The next question concerned the contents of the suit-case, and Honnor replied that it was beer. The policeman then produced his note book, whereupon Honnor and Russell demanded to be taken to Sergeant Hogan. ' Constable O'Neill agreed, and at the police station the suit-case was opened and found to contain a dozen bottles of beer. Honnor there made a statement in which he said he had been to a party. He left there about 10 p.m. and went to Cohen's marble bar for supper. After that he met a friend and later, about 11.30 p.m., was on his way back to the party when he met Russell. He denied that he had been near the hotel or that he had carried any suitcase. Griffiths made a similar statement and declared that the first he had seen of the suitcase was when the constable had it on the running board of the car. Such was the constable's story. Lawyer Rogers then got busy. To the constable: You are not on friendly terms with McLeod, are you? — I'm not unfriendly to him. You bear him no malice? — No. And you have had no difficulty or grievance with him? — He has had an imaginary grievance against me. Inspector Cummings: How long ago was that? — About 12 months. "Well, I object, your worship. Anything outside three months should not be brought up." Lawyer Rogers: "Of course, you object, but I want to prove to you that this witness' evidence is unreliable." Magistrate: "It is really not relevant, but I'll see how far Mr. Rogers will go." Lawyer Rogers to witness: McLeod's barman refused you liquor once, didn't he? — No, he did not. And on one occasion, in company with a man named Nihill, you went to a billiard-room and asked to see McLeod? — No. And you asked him to get you some liquor? — I did not. And when he refused, you asked him to let you have his keys, so that you could get it yourself? — Surely you're not serious, Mr. Rogers. I am serious! And didn't McLeod say he would not supply you, as you owed him several pounds? — If he did, I didn't hear him. Constable's Denial And then you told him he would be sorry for it? — No. Didn't you tell him, in company with Constable Home and Mr. Anderson, that you woud get him out of the hotel in two months? — No; certainly -not! All right! Now, when you went to the car, didn't Russell tell you not to touch that suit- case, as it was his? — ■ No. If Honnor said he was McLeod's guest why didn't you go to see McLeod that night and find out? — Honnor wanted to go to the police-station, so I took him. And you didn't go back to see McLeod? — No, I was too busy. You didn't try to verify Honnor's statement? — No. Is it correct that you owe money to McLeod? — No; certainly not. The next witness was Phenus Cohen, who took his oath by Jehovah and with his hat on. His evidence was to the effect that from 10.30 p.m. on September 15 till closing time, he was in charge of the marble bar and neither Honnor nor Griffiths came in for supper while he was there. Sergeant J. Hogan told the court that he had interviewed McLeod, who denied that he had supplied any liquor or that Honnor or Griffiths had been on the premises at the time stated. The suit-case, McLeod stated, had been in his office for some years, but he did not know to whom it belonged. He said that the office girl nad given Russell the suit-case before B o'clock that evening. Lawyer Rogers,: Didn't you get a

(From "N.Z. Truth's" Hastings Representative.)

When A. M. Mowlem was welcomed to Hawkes Bay as the stipendiary magistrate for the district, he mentioned that he had yet to find the policeman whose word he could not believe.

statement from McLeod?- — .Yes; the inspector has got it. Inspector: "Yes, I've got it." Lawyer Rogers: "Well, why don't you produce it?" Inspector: "I don't Intend to produce it!" Lawyer Rogers: "Well, I want it produced. It's in court and should be produced. You produced the other statements; why not this one?" Inspector: "Where's your authority to make me produce it?" Magistrate: "It rests entirely with the police." Lawyer Rogers: "Well, it's strange that they won't produce it." To the sergeant: Did it contain complaints against Constable O'Neill? —Yes. That's the reason it isn't produced, I suppose? — I can't say the reason. Now, sergeant, I issued a subpoena for Constable Home to be called this morning!- — Well, I can't help that. " I know you can't, but Constable Home was on duty in town this morning and now when this case is called he is unable to be found. w Where is he?" Magistrate: "You can't answer that, sergeant. You can't say where a policeman is in the execution of his duty." Lawyer Rogers: "It's rather remarkable that he has been spirited away at this moment! What are his hours of duty; can you tell us that?" Inspector: "No, certainly not!" Lawyer Rogers: "We are up against a stone wall; I can see that." The case for the prosecution having

concluded, Lawyer Rogers immediately called Donald H. McLeod. The licensee positively denied that he had seen either Honnor or Griffiths on September 15. The suit-case produced was left property in his hotel and had been there for at least three years. McLeod told the court that his relations with Constable O'NeiU nad been anything but cordial over the past twelve months and about a year ago he had to refuse the constable any further credit for whisky. Inspector Cummings contended that this evidence was irrelevant. Magistrate: "No doubt it is, but it might be better to let it go on. The defence is that the constable has framed up a case and perhaps tha longest way round may be the shortest way home." Continuing, McLeod said that Constable O'Neill owed him about £6. On the second day of the spring show last year, the constable, in company with Con- a stable Home, came to the hotel and in front of Home and a man named And ers on, O'Neill threatened that he would have witness out of the hotel in two months. The licensee then detailed the bil-liard-room incident and the threat previously referred to. Inspector Cummings: You stock that brand of liquor in the suit-case? — Yes. When Sergeant Hogan interviewed you, why didn't you tell him of the threats and of the fact that O'Neill owed you money? — I didn't want to get him into trouble. Well, why do it now? — Because it ls a case of victimisation. I am not guilty of this offence! Have you any complaint to make regarding Constable O'Neill's behavior during the past twelve months? — I know that he has been hostile to me. He has been out to catch me. On one occasion he actually held one of my guests at the police station whilst he inspected my books. Another time he followed a respectable man from my hotel and questioned him. Hasn't a constable the right to question a man seen coming out of a hotel at night? — There is no need to follow him to his club!

For Three Years

George Washington

The evidence of Reginald Honnor was on the lines of the statement he had given the police. He denied that he had told the constable there was beer in the suit-case or that he had been McLeod's guest. Inspector Cummings: You used to be a barman at that hotel? — Yes. You're a close friend of McLeod's? — Yes. "And you're willing to help him out in this!" Lawyer Rogers: "That's not a fair way to put it." Magistrate: "Put it — 'willing to tell the truth*." Inspector: And you're telling the truth — nothing but the truth. You're quite truthful, are you? — A George Washington. Well, you heard Cohen say y o u were never in the marble bar?— We were there. Who served you? — A girl. What time was that? — Soon after 10 p.m. But In your statement you said it was about 11.30? — I meant that was the time the constable accosted us at the car. He says it was 12.10 a.m.! — It was striking 12 when we were at the police station. Are you sure? — Positive. Did they have liquor at the party? — Yes. And they ran short of it, I suppose? — No, there was plenty. And it was just a coincidence that you met Russell? — Absolutely! And you were never in the hotel that night?— Not after 6 p.m.

Athol Griffiths, jockey, gave similar evidence. Magistrate: Is Russell a taxi-driver? — No; it was a private car. Wasn't it strange that a constable should look at a private car like that and inspect a suit-case? — Yes, we were surprised to see him. "Yes, I'll bet you were!" remarked his worship. ■ The evidence of Sidney Russell revealed that on the afternoon of September 15 he went to the Hastings Hotel and ordered a dozen beer, which he intended to take to a "parcel" evening for which he had received an invitation. On the instructions of the barman, he went to the office of the hotel and was given a suit- case by the girl. This was about 5.30 p.m. He put the beer in the suit-case, which he placed in his car. Then he went home. As he was not a dancing man, he decided to spend the evening with a friend and go along to the party later on. After tea, he came back to town and as the lights on his car were not working properly, he decided to park the car in one of the parking areas, leaving it there while he went to visit his friend. The beer was in the car all the time. About 11.30 p.m. he left his { friend, and started off for the party in his car. On the way he met Honnor and Griffiths. While he was talking to them, Constable O'Neill came along. The suitcase was then in the front of the car, and when the constable went to take it. witness called out: "Don't touch that; it's mine!" The constable told witness to wait till he took Honnor to the hotel, but witness refused to wait, and asked to be taken to Sergeant Hogan. Inspector: Do you really want us to believe that you took this beer touring round the - town like that? — It wasn't touring the town. It was in my car all the time. Parked in a public place like that? — Yes. They must be honest people in Hastings! And it was only a coincidence that you should meet

Honnor and Griffiths as you did? — Yes, it was. Constance Nihill. the girl in the office at the Hastings Hotel, told, the court that she had given Russell The suit-case the previous evening, but she did not know what he wanted it for. Evan Hanslett, night porter at the hotel, stated that he was on duty on the night in question and denied that it would be possible for anyone to be in the hotel without him knowing it. He stated positively that neither Honnor nor Griffiths had been in the hotel from the time he went on duty at 10 p.m. The next witness was William J. McKeown, head barman at the hotel. Lawyer Rogers: Have you ever served Constable O'Neill with liquor? — Yes. Has he always paid for it? — No; sometimes he did and sometimes he did not. Have you ever had to refuse to serve him? — Tes. Why? — I was instructed not to give him any more credit. At this point, Inspector Cummings again protested that if the defence was going to call such evidence he would have to ask for a definite ruling as to its admissibility. O'Neill had already denied that he had been refused credit or that he had been refused a drink and the defence had no right to call evidence of rebuttal. Lawyer Rogers: "What! Can't we discredit your witness? You tried to discredit ours, but I am 1 not allowed to discredit yours!" His worship ruled in favor of the inspector and would not allow any further evidence of this nature. John Anderson was then called. He also went on to speak of having refused credit to O'Neill, but was stopped by the magistrate. Lawyer Rogers: Were you in the bar one night of the show last year when Constable O'Neill came in with Constable Home? — Yes. Did you hear O'Neill say anything to McLeod? — Yes, I heard him tell McLeod

In Marble Bar

that he would be out of the hotel in three months. This brought another objection from the inspector on the grounds that it happened twelve months ago and in any case had been denied by the constable. This objection was also upheld. In an effort to bring out the facts concerning the alleged refusal of the barmen to supply the constable with liquor — and also statements said to have been made to McLeod by the constable — Lawyer Rogers called Cornelius Nihill and Constable Home (who by this time had been found), but when it was known what they intended to say, their evidence was ruled out by the bench. The inspector asked permission to call the waitress at Cohen's marble bar to prove that neither Honnor nor Griffiths had been in the marble bar that night, but this time Lawyer Rogers put in an objection. He held that if the inspector was allowed to call rebutting evidence, then the defence should be allowed to call Constable Home and others to rebut the evidence of Constable O'Neill, whose credibility he wished to throw doubt upon. After hearing Lawyer Rogers, his worship upheld his objection and the case closed. Having inspected the locus in quo, the S.M, delivered a rather lengthy oration from the bench. "The evidence," he said, "naturally divides itself into two parts. On the one hand there is the evidence of Constable O'Neill, the salient points of which are that he was standing on the corner when he saw two men come out of the side door of the hotel. "One of them was carrying a suitcase, which was put into a motor-car, and it was subsequently ascertained that this suit-case contained liquor. "On the other hand, there is the evidence for the defence. Their story is that the man did not have the suitcase, and that in saying so Constable O'Neill is saying it maliciously, vindictively and erroneously, with the expressed desire of injuring the licensee. "The defence is that the beer was legally purchased before 6 p.m. the previous evening and after its precarious journey round the town it gets into the hands of the police. "It seriously asks us to believe that Russell got that beer before 6 p.m., took it home, brought it back, parked it in his car in a public place for some hours and later started to take it to the party. "Later, by a strange coincidence — a very strange coincidence — he meets the two men whom the constable pays he saw coming from the hotel with the suit- case. "Which am Ito believe? Is the constable guilty of trying to put one across a person? If I thought so I would have something to say.

Policeman's Word

"It is perfectly plain without wasting words that the constable's evidence is true. It would be the strangest thing ln life in my mind if it was not. "It would be the strangest thing in life in my mind if the story for the defence is true. I am satisfied that a sale took place after hours and I propose to convict the licensee. "I want to say here that I do not believe the evidence of Honnor and Griffiths at all and I propose to convict them. "The case against the licensee for keeping his place open for the sale of liquor after hours will be dismissed. "There is a strong suspicion that Honnor and Griffiths did assist the licensee in that offence, as I have no doubt that they went there to get liquor, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt and that information against them will be dismissed. "On the other charge they will both be fined £2 and costs 10/-. The licensee will be fined £7/10/- and costs 13/-." Lawyer Rogers: "Your worship — ." Magistrate: Very well, Mr. Rogers, I know what you are going to say. I'll fix security for appeal." Lawyer Rogers: "Well, your worship intimated when you came here that you had yet to find the constable whose word you could not take; that ' being so, it might be a reason for me to take lt to a higher court." Magistrate: "Take it to a higher court by all means. There's plenty of room there! The security will be £15/15/-."