Publican Fined £20; Sequel to Assault

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 809, 1 November 1929, Page 11

Publican Fined £2O; Sequel to Assault

POLITICAL ARGUMENT ! “LIKE BAD OLD DAYS” - j s like the bad old days when J man thinks he can get into the box and tell a yarn like this,” said F. K. Hunt S.M., at the Police Court this morning, convicting an hotel licensee on a charge of assault. There was an extraordinary conflict of evidence but the magistrate said that fie had no hesitation in believing the witnesses for the prosecution. FTHOMAS RICHARDS, licensee of 1 Gleeson s Hotel, was lined £lO for assault and a similar sum for selling liquor alter hours. His licence was endorsed, the magistrate remarking ibat he doubted whether defendant was a lit person to hold a licence.. Richards was charged also with opening licensed premises after hours and Mr. R. McVeagh entered pleas of not guilty on all counts. Sub-Inspector McCarthy outlined the case and. at the request of Mr. McVeagh, witnesses were ordered out of court as, according to him, there would be a vast difference in the jtories told by witnesses. ' Kenneth Douglas, a business manjger, said that he had been in his offlee in the Strand Arcade with two friends. Couch and Wilson, at 10.15 p.m. on September 27. At the suggestion of Couch the party had gone to Gleeson’s Hotel, where the licensee was waiting at the door to let them ip. They had gone into the private bar. where witness and Wilson were introduced to the licensee, Richards, by Couch. Richards had served one drink each and Couch had left to catch a boat. Witness and his friend had stayed in the bar and had two more drinks. “I had whiskys, for which I jras charged Is a nip,” said Douglas. POLITICAL “ARGUMENT” “There were other men in the bar. ‘X political argument arose between Jlichards and me. He asked me whether I meant what I said about Bill Massey being a better man than Joey Ward, and I said that I did. He asked me to repeat the statement and when I did. he said he would have me on for it, meaning that he would dght me. I told him not to be foolish and Wilson suggested that 1 had better leave. As I went out Richards came out from behind the bar and struck me several times on the head. I was knocked down and a man, whom I now identify among the men in the court as Porter, picked me up and threw me out of the door. We were still quite sober, but Richards was in[oricated. “As a result of blows, by head was cut. I had two black eyes, and was badly bruised,” added witness. “I was off work for a fortnight, and my medical expenses amounted to £S Bs. The suit I was wearing was ruined.” Witness explained that he was unable to put up any defence, as the muscle had been removed from his light arm, which was useless to him. Leslie Wilson, a dentist, gave his version of the events of the evening ef September 27. in Gleeson’s Hotel, two men, one of them Richards, had wanted to fight Douglas in the private bar. Witness had said that he would stand near the entrance of the bar while his friend went out. “The next thing I heard was a thud and commotion in the passage,” added witness. “Douglas was lying almost knocked out on the floor.” Richards and another man, whom witness identified as Porter, were standing by, and Potter was holding Douglas's arm. ASSISTED TO THE DOOR “1 assisted Douglas to the door, said Wilson, “and, while holding Douglas up against the wall near the door, Porter came, and Richards, holding the door open, threw Douglas out. Douglas was bleeding very freely, and I later went to the wharf police station.” George Couch, a watchmaker, said that it was at his suggestion that the party had visited Gleeson’s Hotel. Richards, the licensee, had served a round of drinks, after which witness had left to catch a boat to get to his I home at Birkenhead. He had not seen Douglas until the next morning, when he bore undoubted signs of having been injured. Mr. McVeagh called attention to the fact that there would be a direct denial of witnesses’ statements. The licensee and the barman who lived on the Premises were early in bed that evening. Tile licensee would deny that he had opened the door, served drink, or assaulted anyone.

The Magistrate: Then these men Bust, have gone to another hotel. Mr. McVeagh: That is a possibility. “I have never seen witness Douglas in my life before,” said Richards in the hov. On that particular Friday he had been out to his trainers’ place at Epsom, arriving home about 9.20 p.m* There were two barmen and two hoarders in the house. Witness gave them drinks and was in bed by 10.20 Pm. “These three men have delibconcocted their story to get me ® to trouble,” said Richards. “In fact, ooe of them. Couch, I think it was, jnme down to the barman to see what e*°uld give him.” The Magistrate : Were you there ? Witness: No. The Magistrate: Well, you can't , T anything about that. We’ll have 10 got it. from the barman. According to George Jensen, barman «Gleeson’s hotel, he remembered the evening referred to as his birthday on the following day. Richards served drinks to witness, another Jr®* 11 and- two boarders on his arj? al home about 9.30 p.m. Porter, other barman, had then left the smi” t 0 go home, and witness had ~ “ PPotairs, as had the licensee. Of ,o diree police witnesses, Jensen p w only Couch. fgjfald Porter, also a barman, said p*.j “6 remembered the particular hsil ’ very well, because Richards te» the charge to him a «eni 8 la,er - Porter’s story of the J of the evening was similar to He ,ni t!le two Previous witnesses, wi, n °t know any of the three Witnesses. W , , k that the last three witnesses Hu,,d deliberate lies,” said the that th te ’ "f arn unable to believe *a ,j“ ree . r ? s P ec table young men, one the c, rt 'sing agent with offices in ■he .u Arcade, one a dentist, and tlj* . “ er a watchmaker, would take *er»» b,e to tell this story if it brut.. , true - It was a particularly Ban , atta ek as the assaulted young the 1,, cr 'PPled in one leg, has lost klansf..*, bis right arm and wears hhnr^j"* s was convicted and dis°n ,hp charge of keeping open premises.