A PUKOKOHE SHOW INCIDENT.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 5, Issue 151, 29 February 1916, Page 2

A PUKOKOHE SHOW INCIDENT.

Breezy Times in Court-

Counsel and Bench at Variance>

A decidedly heated atmosphere, in more ways than one, permeated the Pukekohe Police Court on Saturday morning when a charge of theft was being heard against a travelling showman, the Bench and Counsel for tho defence v MrJ. R* Lundon being so decidedly at varianco that argument of a very acrimonious character was not only forthcoming but Counsel intimated that lie would move for a " prohibition" of the conviction entered against his client by reason of the alleged bias of the Bench and what he described as a travesty of justice. The J.P.'s on the Bench were Messrs C. Roadley J, T. titembrldge and R. F. Webster, and the occupant of the dock was Frank Smith, u " side-sbowman " attending the Pukekohe Show, who was charged with having on the previous afternoon, on the showground stolen the sum of £3, the property of Joseph Gardener, a fellow showman. Sorgt. Cowan couducted the case for the police and, as already stated, Mr J. R. Lundon appeared fur the defence.

The first witness called was Flossie Gardener, who deposed that her husband (Joseph Gardener) was an exponent of wrestling and had been giving displays on the previous afternoon on the showground. He made a wager of £ 1 that he would defeat an opponent who came forward and displaying four £1 notes he gave one £ 1 note to a certain person to hold as the stake-money and then placed the other three bank notes in the inside pocket of his coat, which was hanging on a peg on the outside of the teni by the entrance aperture. A fair-sized crowd went into the tent, including the accused, and soon after the performance had etartod she went to the coat and found tho notes were gone. A man, named Simon, came to her and told her that he had seen accused interfering with her husband's coat. , A PRELIMINARY SKIRMISH.

Mr LundoD, at this point, rose and objected to any evidence being given as to a conversation with a third party at v? hich the acjusad was not present. Mr Roadley, chairman of the Bench, (to witness): "Go on with your story and tell us what occurred."—To Mr London : " It is for us to decide what evidence we take and not for you." Mr Lundon : The Court, even in Pukekohe, must be run on the ordinary rules of evidence. Mr Eoadley : Are you conducting this Court or are we ?

Mr Lundon : I will conduct it if necessary.

Mr Roadley : Don't dictate to us. Mr Lundon : I will dictate to you if I think fit, and I will object to evidence when I think fit. Please take note of my objection to your ruling in view of an appeal. Mrg Gardener, in rej»ly to Sergt. Cowan, then stated that accused was not present when Simon spoke to her.

Mr Lundon (to Sergt. Cowan): You know what evidense should and should not be given.

EVIDENCE CONTINUED

Witness, continuing, said Unit the three notes that were lost had been in her possession tor some time, and she had handed them to her husband for the purposes of the show. She had rolled them up in a crumpled way, and one was a very old green note and another was a very soft

browu note. The three notes (produced) were very similar to those that were missing. By Mr Lundon : On the previous afternoon she had noticed another man something like the accused and that man also went into the tent.

She did not know that man and had not seen him before. Sho took the money at the entrance to the tent and in doing so stood opposite the coat but did not see anyone interfere with it although as she was busy taking the money she might not have seen such an act. Anyone touching the coat would have had to raise his hand above his head as the coat was on a high peg. The accused had during the afternoon exchanged a sovereign with her for a note and subsequently she asked him to give her back the sovereign which he did and she returned him the £1 note. Hor husband tq impress the public Hashed thp notes about in offering the £\ to anyone to wrestle with him and hie put the other three notes in the pqeket of the coat within the full view of the crowd in front qf tho tent.

During the examination of Mrs Gardener, Mr Lundon explained to the Justices that he had only arrived

from Auckland in tirno to get to the Court, apd he did not know the names of the peoplo concerned in. the case, nor whether his witnesses were present, as he had had no time to see them.

Mr Roadley informed Mr Lundon that the police would, if necessary, send to the showground for any witnesses the accused wanted to call. INSIGHT INTO SHOW LIFE.

Simon Antony deposed that he was an Assyriap-Italian half-caste. On the previous afternoon he had " a show " on the showground opposite Gardener's, and when Gardener was going to give a display he went over and assisted him in arguments. He saw accused feeling the outside pockets of the coat that was hanging up, but did not see him take anything from it. He had known accused for a long time aud had never seen him, do anything " crook'' By Mr Lundon : It was usual for money to be shown when matches

were being uiadejust to impress the public and the stauo money was usually handed to someone they could trust. The show-people helped one another by going to one another's shows aud among themselves they pretended to make bets as an encouragement to the public and then if a local man made a bet

with them the man backed by the lbc;'.l man would loca. The accuse*} pretended ty make a bet with hi'm and gave him a £1 note as the gave t«

Joseph Gardener corroborated his yife's evidence as to placing the tferee notes in the pocket of his coat. /Constable Thornell deposed to In resting accused and stated that in possession he found a roll of eight notes, three notes being crumpled up within a roll of five others. TBE STORM BREAKS This closed the evidence tor the police, and Mr Roadley intimated that the Bench would leHre to consider the case. Mr I.urdon suggested to tbe Bench that they were sittiug as a jury and it was for them to decide, seeing that everything was a mas? ot doubt whether there was any case to answer. Be urged that no jjry couli be asked to convict on tbe evidence given Tee Justices then retired, and on returning into Court Mr Roadley and: "We have carefully considered the case and taking into consideration the previous conviction against the accused we have come to the conclusion that tbe circumstantial evidence is sufficient on which to convict, and " Whilst Mr Roadley was sneaking Mr Lundon had risen to bis feet and at this juncture he interrupted, saying: "A prisoner is usually allowed the; opportunity of calling evidence. You evidently do not understand the first principles ot justic. You retired to consider whether there was a case to answer, for which evidence was to be called. You cannot convict and then hear evicencs afterwards. The practice is for Counsel to make a statement and then evidence is called. You stated that there was a previous conviction ajaitst tbe accused. That is ground far a prohibition of your conviction. Not a word has been said in evidence about a conviction. It is an extraordinary thing to find in tbe year 1916 gentlemen presiding on the Bench and volunteering tbe statement of a previous conviction. I have asked the Pr:ss representative preterit to preeerve .his rotes with a view of an appeal Sergt. Cowan: The conviction was* in Pakekohe an J the Justices naturally kcew of it. Mr Lundon: They shoild not have known of it. They were sitting as a jury ' Mr Roadley: You had the opportunity of calling evidence. Don't try to brow-beat the Bench Mr Lundon, scornfully: Brow-beat , you! I am not attempting to browbeat you. I don't bother with you after what occurred early in the case Mr Stembridge: 1 certainly thought you had finished your case Mr Luudon: I am prepared to accept your statement if you say so and • also that of the other gentleman (Mr Webster) on the left of the chair- ' man. 1 had four witnesses to call ' Mr Roadley: We have to desire ' to di any in jus tic 3 * and tbe wit- • nesses can be called ' Mr Lundon: It is a perfect » travesty of justice to call them > now. The accused is certainly en- i titled to apply tor a "prohibition" » and, if necessary, he will do si so i that the whole matter shall be t made pubic > Mr Stembridge: We do not want I any talk ' Mr Lundon: I must recognise that < your minds are biassed now '

•THE DEFENCE Witnesses for the defence were then called frank Lyall deposed tbat at Taihape on Thursday, before coming to Pukekohe the accused snowed witness a roll of notes that he had made at the Taihape* Show, and witness reckoned the amount of the notes was £8 or £lO. On the previuus afternoon (Friday), about Lalf-an-hour before the alleged theft, the accused and he were joking about money, and the accuse j again showed him bis roll of notes By Mr Koadley: He bad bad an interview with defendant's solicitor before giving evidence Air Koadley, to Mr Lundon: Yon said you had not been out of Court

Mr Lundon, who had made the statement referred to by Mr Koadley prior to the Justices retiring and who during tbat interval had had the opportunity ot interviewing bis witnesses: 1 do bope you will give me credit lor not being a fool

Albert Stewart, another showmar, stated that whilst waiting on lhursdayon the etttion platform at Taihape for the train to Pukekohe he saw the accused pull a roll ot bank nutej out of bis pocket. The accused was always jokirg, and he asked witness to lend him money to pay bis fare to Pukekohe, and when witness, ottered him the money the accused stowed him the bank notfs David Livingstore, another showman, rJepoeed that on the previous morning 'Friday) he asked accused for the loan uf £1 and accused took a roll ot notes put of hif pocket and gave him one. Witness handed' him back a £1 note during the afternpon

Mr Lundon submitted that the three separate cramplsd no'es found by the polipe in accused's roll of notes were explained by one having been ieturned to him by the witness Simon Antony in respect of the pretended bet. one by having been rpturtiid to him by tne witness Livingstone for the £1 lent him, and the other by having been handed hack to him by Mrs Gardener in exchange for the sovereign. Mr Lundon added that in view of what the Jutsices bad said he would not put the accused in the witness box so tbat there ghould be no possible chance of any evidence being given of any previous conviction. He had advised the aceueed accordingly and took that course deliberately CONVICTION ENTEKED

After consultation with his fellow Justices, Mr Koadley announced that they had considered the rebutting evidence called hut saw no reason to alter their previous decision to convict. Th«j accused would be fined £3, in default one month's imprisonment, and out of the money found on him £'i would have to be returned to 'Jardener Mr Lundon asked that in view of an appeal for a "prohibition" of the Justices' decision they should fix the amount of costs necessary for the appeal. Mr Lundon went on to say that since their Worships had knowledge of a previous conviction when they decided to convict be intended to appeal on the kpQint that the „onviction was ■wfOQK and biaased. Mr Koadlcy that the cos!s ot the apKvnuld be fixed at £lO 10b ■ion

the case there was an extraordinary outburst of temper on the part of Mr Roadley towards the representative of this paper, who bad been reporting the proceedings. Dming the course ot the case Mr Lundon had across the table, at which he and our representative were seated. ask el first tor the name of the chairman of the Bench and later on fa/ the names of the other two Justices, which information was duly supplied. Mr Lundon also, as already stated, made a tequest to our representative for his original notes of the case to be prreseived with a view vf an affidavit being sworn if the matter were taken to a higher Court. Such incidents constitute the ordinary interchange of courtesies between the legal profession and tbe Press, but evidently Mr Roadley, smarting under tbe rebukes administered to him by Mr Lundon, formed the idea that there was a collusion to his detriment between Mr Lundon and our representative. In an excited mood after leaving tbe Bench he approached our representative in the precincts of the Court and angrily remarked: "I am satisfied about you. I have finished with you. 1 will see you next week." Our iepresentative realised that Mr Koadley was labouring under a misapprehension as to what had been taking place, and promptly appealed to Mr London, who was standing near, to say whether their conversation had in any way extended beyond the formal nature as already set forth. This Mr Lundon did, but Mr Roadley nevertheless failed to offer any apology for his unwarranted and uncalled tor impeachment of our representative's bona fides