WAS IT A TRAP?

Taihape Daily Times, Volume 8, Issue 86, 10 April 1916, Page 2

WAS IT A TRAP?

LICENSEE AND POLICE. SCENE IN COURT. A period of tension enlivened the proceedings in the Magistrate's Court, Wellington, during the hearing of a case in which John Timothy Foley, licensee of the Cricketers’ Arms Hotel, was charged with supplying beer and whisky to two police constables on Sunday, January 2nd. The constables were disguised in khaki. Inspector Hendry said that the two constables, acting under instructions from their superior officers, visited defendants’ hotel on the morning in question. They were told not to go in, as there were too many people about, but to return later. The constables asked defendant, who opened the door, if they could be supplied with dinner, and then went away. They returned about. 12.30 p.m., and at-their request were supplied with liquor, for which they paid. Constables Harvey and Goulding gave evidence describing their visit to defendant's premises, and the sale of

1 liquor. The defendant then went into the witness-box, and stated that the beer was only hop beer. H e alleged that he was never paid for the flask of whisky. He had reason to bereve that a trap had been laid for him. In consequence of fhnt, he was extra careful. “Now, Mr. Foley,” said Inspector llmidrev, when he came to cross-ex-amine the witness. “Yen say that you > received warning that a trap had been set for you. Who gave you that warning?” Defendant: “I refuse to tell von.” Inspector Hemlrey: “But I demand to know.” Defendant: “I cannot toll you.” The defendant was told that he must answer the question, but he again refused, whereupon Inspector Hendroy asked him if h 0 knew what the consequences would be if he did not answer. Defendant answered “Yes.” “You sec, Mr. Foley,” continued Inspector Hendrey, “I don’t believe you when you say you were warned. Therefore I insist upon receiving an answer. I want to know who warned you, and ‘xactly what you were told.” Defendant: “I prefer, to take the consequences of my refusal to answer. ”

“Were you warned at all, and by ’nybocly? ’ —Yes. I received a warnng from Manners street.’'

“Who gave you that warning?”— “I will not answer that.”

“Very woD. I must ask the magistrate to commit you for. contempt.” Mr. D. G. A. Cooper, S.M., warned the defendant that he was liable to be committed to gaol for seven days. Mr. M. Myers (who w*as appearing for defendant): “If Your Worship thinks the question is one that should be answered.”

The magistrate said that he had so ruled.

The cross-examination was proceeded’ with. When this had concluded, Inspector Hendrey said: “Now, to come back to my first question. Who warned vou ? ’’

“Defendant: “I will not answer. It was confidential advice, and I refuse to say from Avhom I received it.” Inspector Hendrey: “Well, I must a.sk His Worship to commit you for contempt. I will give you this opportunity. If you don’t want your informant’s name to be made public you can write it down.”

Defendant said that h e Avould write the answer, and show it. to the magistrate only, but Mr. Cooper said that was net sufficient.

The magistrate appeared to be on th e point of committing the defendant, when Inspector Hendrey suggested that lie should be given until after the luncheon adjournment to reflect. His Worship agreed to this suggestion.

On the court resuming at 2.30 p.m., Mr. Myers suggested that the other evidence for the defence should be called before it was definitely decided to press the question. Inspector Hendi’cy said that lie was agreeable to the adoption of such a course. Mr. Myers said that his client could hardly be expected to divulge the information which the inspector desired. Thereupon a consultation took place between His Worship, Inspector Hendrey, and Mr. Myers, and later between Mr. Myers and his client. After a short interval, Mr. Myers informed the magistrate that the defendant had agreed to withdraw his pica of not guilty in regard to the sale of whisky, it being understood that the police would withdraw the second charge.

Mr. Cooper said that such a course was a wise one. The"; circumstances wer 0 somewhat different to the case of Whelan’s, and therefore the fine would bo heavier. The defendant would be fined £5, with 7/ costs. 'As the method adopted in securing the conviction did not meet entirely with His Worship’s approval, defendant’s license would not be endorsed.