Hastings Jockey Who Put Tea In Beer Bottles As Hoax

NZ Truth, Issue 1148, 1 December 1927, Page 5

Hastings Jockey Who Put Tea In Beer Bottles As Hoax

PUTTING IT OVER

LIMBS OF THE LAW

PROBABILITIES

"OFFICIAL" ANALYSIS

JIIIMIIIIIII!llllllllI(lll!lllllinilinUMMIIMIII!llinillll)MllIIIIIII!llll!!l!llltll!l)IIH»^

When the beer was opened, No froth was there to pour; Now, wasn't that a nasty trick To play upon the Law?

/"VRDINARILY, of course, It should \J not require an expert to distinguish between tea and the more plebtan beer, but the law is very exacting. It will require an official analysis of the contents of two bottles recently uncorked m the Hastings Magistrate's Court. And all because Jockey Athol Griffiths chose to spring his surprise packet de luxe. The cold tea, which according to the story that Griffiths himself unfolded, was put into two beer bottles, nicely corked up like the genuine article, all for the purpose of putting it over the police. Griffiths, it is said, was not very friendly with the members of the force, for only a few weeks back, he was before the court on a similar charge, and the principal witness against him was Constable O'Neill. So when he evolved the idea of the cold tea m the beer bottles, it may have been with the intention of getting one on to Constable O'Neill.

He said he knew the police were watching him, so he deliberately put the bottles m his pocket and set out to "catch" his constable "friend." To make things a bit more realistic he acted m a manner which was calculated to make any policeman suspicious. But unfortunately it wasn't Constable O'Neill he caught at all, but a relieving officer from sunny Napier. The charges against Donald Hugh McLeod, licensee of the Hastings Hotel, were that on November 2, 1927, he opened his hotel for the sale of liquor after hours; selling liquor to Athol Griffiths during prohibited hours and selling liquor to Athol Griffiths, an intoxicated person at the time. Griffiths was also charg-ed with being m the hotel after hours without lawful excuse. The same two were before the court a few weeks previously on similar charges with the exception of supplying to an intoxicated person. As before, the plea was not guilty. Inspector Cummings again handled the case for the Crown, and Lawyer E. J. W. Hallett appeared for the defendants. Constable Daniel Flannery was on relief duty m Hastings at the time, and he told the court that while standing on the main street railway crossing with Constable Murray, he saw Griffiths come out of the Hastings Hotel at 10.5 p.m. on the date of the charge. Witness at once got busy with the query: "What were you doing m the hotel?" Griffiths, m reply, denied that he was m the hotel.

"What's the use of talking like that when we saw you coming out?" was the rejoinder by the constable, but there was still a denial on rhe part of Griffiths that he had been m the hotel.

"What have you m your poclcets?" was the constable's next question, and Griffiths replied: "Nothing." Next, the constable threatened to search Griffiths, but Griffiths objected to being searched m £he street so they went to the police station. There, witness took from Griffiths' pockets the two bottles of "beer" produced.

Inspector Cummings (to Lawyer Hallett) : I suppose you will admit that it is beer, Mr. Hallett? You don't want it opened, I suppose?

Lawyer Hallett: I don't know what they contain. It looks like

beer, and if you did open them I

could not tell you if it is beer or not. (Smiles). His Worship: You'll take the risk then and admit that it is beer?

Lawyer Hallett: Oh, yes, certainly!

Continuing, Constable Flannery stated that Griffiths refused to say where he got the beer, as he did not want to get anyone into trouble. Thereupon, witness took him along to see McLeod.

McLeod denied that Griffiths had been on the premises except to be just inside the door. The licensee also assured the constable that Griffiths had not got the beer from the hotel.

When the Court was silent With tense authority, The witness answered meekly, "That 'beer' was only teal"

Sergeant Hogan gave evidence aa to his arrival during the discussion between the constable, Griffiths and MeLeod.

Lawyer Hallett: The story you learned was that Griffiths went into the hotel to see McLeod about a racehorse he was to ride for McLeod, and that no beer was supplied to him from the hotel?— Yes, that is so.

This concluded the story for the police.

In opening for the defence, Lawyer Hallett said there were two sides to every question. McLood's story all along, had been that Griffiths had not been supplied with liquor from the hotel.

McLeod owned a racehorse which was trained by Griffiths. A trial run of the horse had been arranged to take place early the following morning, and McLeod was not aware of this, so Griffiths went to the hotel to let him know about it.

When Griffiths left the hotel, both he and McLeod knew the police were at the railway crossing. In such a case as this, continued counsel, there were also the probabilities to consider. For instance, McLeod was convicted only a few weeks back, and he knew what another conviction would mean. Was it likely that he would take any risk knowing that the police were m the vicinity?

Then, even supposing he had supplied Griffiths with the liquor, would he have allowed him to walk right into the arms of the police, standing m the road under the glare of a light m which they could easily be seen? The story of Griffiths would be that he grot the two bottles of beer from his home, intending to spend the night at McLreod's stables. The defending- counsel admitted that Griffiths had "shuffled" a bit with the police, and had been foolish m not telling his true, story.

When Athol Griffiths was put int6 the box as the first witness for the defence, however, he told a r somewhat different story from that expected even by his counsel and then he dropped his bombshell surprise; •

He detailed (m keeping with counsel's story) how he got the beer from his home, and en route to the stables called m to tell McLeod of the early morning gallop. Also he detailed similar evidence to that given by Constable Flannery.

Lawyer Hallett: And you left the bottles at the police station, I suppose? —Yes.

Those two bottles there on the table, are. the ones you left? — Yes, but they don't contain beer.

"What!" roared counsel. "What is m them then? — Tea. Gold tea. (Commotion m body of the court).

His Worship: You admitted thuy contained beer, Mr. Hallett.

Lawyer Hallett: I know that, sir. I thought they did.

' His Worship (to witness) : You say it is tea? — Yes, it is.

Then, m answer to Inspector Cummings, Griffiths told how he had evolved this scheme to catch the police as outlined above.

The inspector: So the whole thing is only a hoax? — Yes.

You are quite serious m this? — Yes. His Worship: I suppose you think you are frightfully smart? — No.

At this stage it was decided that the two bottles had better be opened, and when the corks came out, the "experts" present seemed to be well satisfied that they contained, not beer, but cold tea.

Evidently, the defending counsel was also kept m the dark as to the nature of the contents of the bottles, for as they were being opened he remarked: "This is the first I knew about this."

Most people could be relied on to tell the difference between beer and cold tea, hut m the courts, things are not done by halves, and now that case has once more been held up until an "official" analysis of the contents has been obtained.

It is expected that the case will be called again about December 7.