DISTURBANCE AT OTAKI

Otaki Mail, Volume 26, 9 July 1919, Page 3

DISTURBANCE AT OTAKI

SERIOUS CA&ES. BENCH AND COUNSEL AT VARIANCE. Charge of Theft. At the-Otaki Police Court yesterday, before Messrs C. H. Williams and Frank Bennett, Charles Bell was charged with the theft of a bottle of boor, the property of .John R. Ingram. Accused jdeaded not gulty. Mr Staveley, who appeared for accused, said owing to a mistake"' in the date of the summons and the fact that there had been insufficient time to prepare a defence, secure witnesses, etc., he asked for an adjournment. As the proper summons was not issued till 4.30 the previous,:afternoon it was not fair to expect accused to have a defence, and only reasonable that time should be allowed to procure witnesses, one of whom had returned to Wellington, while another had a sick wife and large J family, whom he could not leave without ■ making necessary arrangements. J In all there were three charges against j 8011, and he thought it bettor, for all I parties, that the hearing should be ad- | journed for the S.M.

Constable Sathcrlcy stroDgly objected to an adjournment, pointing out that Bell had 'escaped from custody, which, was sufficient to warrant the case being heard at 'once. Mr Staveley maintained that the adjournment should.lie allowed, whereupon the Clerk of the Court, on being appealed to by the Bench, said Mr Staveley was only "beating the air," and pointed out that there was nothing to prevent tho case being heard at once. Ho had suggested that 801 lbe not arrested, but: to proceed by summons. The slight clerical error made by the constable had no bearing, and Sufficient notice had been given. He pointed out that a x'Jcrson found committing a theft could be apprehended without a warrant, and dealt with at once.

Tho Bench considered Mr Staveley's remarks concerning the date of Ibo Summons was only a quibble, and that lio should not waste Hie time of the Court.

Mr Staveley said there were no wit. iicsscs present and under the circumstances it was impossible for him to jplead the case, and if the adjournment was not granted ho would leave the accused to'tile Bench and leave the Court.

Tho Bench ordered that tho case pro .cecd

Bell, on being charged, pleaded not guilty. He also pleaded not guilty to further charges of using obsceue language in a public place, and threatening behaviour.

At this stage Mr Staveley conversed with, tho accused and was told if he was not representing him he should not interfere with him.

• John Henry Dudderidge, licensee of tho Family Hotel, stated: On Saturday evening at. about live minutes to six accused asked me if it was true that I iiad told a man that he was a waster and a thief. I said no, but that I had tiscd words to that effect. The argument took place over a deal in onions, and while the trouble was on Mr Ingram passed the remark thai he knew the onion business was true. Bell then used bad language to Ingram, and in a scufile that ensued the beer was stolen by a man I did not know. I recovered it, and for doing so Bell threatened to strike me with a stone. I raised the bottle as if to strike in defence. Bell continued to use bad language.- and I had to put him out of the hotel.

To Boll: The beer (Tui brand) was purchased at my hotel, and if you brought witnesses to say it was purchased elsewhere they would bo swearing falsely. John K. Ingram deposed: I entered the hotel when an argument was on and interjected. In the trouble that followed my beer was taken by accused. Later I accused Bell of taking the liquor, and he showed fight. To Bell: I have been ordered by doctors to take liquor, and qiu not in the habit'of poking my nose into other people's business. I have never been put out of the Central Hotel, neither have Sir Hulmo or Mrs Pearey ejected me, neither did I tell Tom Wells I did not know who took the beer. I said to TVells I would not swear deliberately that you took the beer, yet at the same time I am certain you did.

To Constable Satherley: I saw Bell strike Mr IJudderidge, and noticed Mrs Dudderidgc go to her husband's assistance, but I advised her to go inside. .Constable Satherley deposed to going |jf tic hotel in response to a telephone message, but when he arrived Bell hud gone. Later he arrested accused, and in doing so Edward Cootes invited Bell to resist, but Frank Cootes advised him to go quietly. He got Bell to the lockup, and when he opened the door Bell bolted and escaped.

Bell, in defence, made a statement to the effect that the police evidence, as well as that of Ingram, was unreliable, also that he haS no need to steal the beer, as at the time he had a lot of money in his possession. He gave the chaTge a complete denial, and maintained further that he had never stolen in his life.

The Bench inflicted a fine of £o, in default one month's imprisonment. Accused asked for time in which to pay. ■but the police objected. William Cootes stated Bell was working for him. and his Cheque would soon be due. TMs however, was not deemed suffi--cicnt security, and Mr Staveley guaranJ«ed the fine. * - •. Threatening Behaviour. The charge of threatening behaviour was dismissed. Obscene Language. On the charge of obscene language the evidence was much on the same lines as previously given. Mr Dudderidgc said the bad language was frequently used, despite the fact that he |skea Bell to go away, guietly.

Mr Ingram gave'corroborative evidence, while'Bell denied' the charge, stating his mate, who. was under the influence of liquor, was the cause of the.whole trouble. ...

v The Bench said the charge was a very serious one, and that magistrates in all parts of the Dominion had decided to deal with such cases in a firm manner. The practice would have to be stopped, but as Bell had been fined in a previous ease the Bench would only inflict a tine of £5, in default one month in gaol. Mr Staveley again guaranteed tho fine. Inciting to Resist. Edward Cootes was fhea charged with inciting Bell to resist. Mr Staveley asked for an adjournment on tho. grounds that the summons at lirst served was wrongly dated, and that it should also have been in Maori. •The Bench ordered that the case proceed, considering Cootes quite capable of reading and speaking* English. Mr Staveley maintained it was not just to proceed with the case as Cootes had 3)0 •chance to secure witnesses. If an adjournment was not granted he would not go on with the ease.

Constable Sathcrlcy raised objection to an adjournment, while file Bench stood firm ae.d ordered proceedings to

;o on. Mr Staveley declined, under the cir umstanccs, to act in the case. Accused, in answer to the charge leaded not guilty.

Constable Satlieiiey said he went to arrest Cell, and met. with interference from Cootes, who followed .all the way to tho lock-up making frequent remarks, telling Bell at the same time not to go. At the station gate witness motioned Cootes away,

John Ingram gave similar evidence, and stated he repeatedly advised Cootes not to interfere.

John Dudderidge also stated that ho heard Cootes tell Bell not to go to the station till a written charge was made. He did not see the constable touch Cooles.

Constable Sathcrlcy denied striking Cootes, and gave evidence that Cootes frequently interfered between him and accused. He did not hear Bell say he wanted two witnesses to tho occur-

Frank Cootes stated that he and his brother (accused) were going homo when the const aide came to arrest Bell. Ho saw his brother being pushed by the constable, but did not, hear any remarks made to BelLto offer resistance. He hoard his brother say to the constable, "Leave Bell alone, and he v. ill walk round by himself."' In crossexamination Cootes said ho could not swear his brother was struck, but he was certainly pushed, and lie heard accused say all he wanted was the charge put in black and white. diaries Bell maintained tho acsuscd did not incite him to resist, rind that he saw tho constable strike Cootes. He asked Cootes to accompany liim to the police station to prove 1)0 was not driml:. and to get the doctor, if needed. He did not know he was charged with

theft. Coofes advised him to go quiet-

The constable held that (he evdence for the defence was contradictory, and handed in a list of convictions against Bell. The Bemeh, fined accused.£3, in default 1-1 days. Time in which to pay was refused Cootes until Mrs Pcarcy guaranteed to pay the fine. Constable Charged With Assault. Constable Satherley was then charged by Edward Cootes with assault, by striking him and catching hold of him by the throat. The constable pleaded not guilty. Cootes asked for an adjournment to enable him to secure a: solicitor. This was denied him, and Cootes declined to go on with the ce.se. The charge was therefore dismissed. Cootes asked if he could get another charge laid, and was told to consult a solicitor.