TAIHAPE MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Taihape Daily Times, 30 April 1919, Page 4

TAIHAPE MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

(Before A. Nathan and M. M. Carpenter. .1. ! sP.) SERVING ALLEGED DRUNKENMAN. At the Taihape Magistrate’s Court yesterday, Harry Con oily was charged with being found drunk in the public bar of the Gretna Hotel, Taihape. on 28th April. Mr Hussey, on behalf of defendant,, pleaded not guilty. The first witness, Mr .1. P. Aldridge, gav e evidence that he saw the accused walking down the centre of Main Street, talking loudly, and excitedly gesticulating. He mentioned to the police that there was a man in the street, that might require their attention. Constable Sheehan, deposed that he walked down past Gretna Hotel. He had walked from Hardens; it took hnlf-a-minute, or thereabouts. He walked straight into the bar; gavj the accused immediately he went in. The accused had ample time to order beer between the time he went into the i hotel and time witness followed him; the barman disappeared. There was no slide to connect one compartment with another. He asked Connolly about the liquor before him. Ho replied that he had no drink; he had not been served by the barman. The . barman said Connolly had hot been served with drink. The glass of beer in the compartment had been left on the counter by a previous customer. When leaving the hotel Connolly did not walk as-though ho was sober. He would swear 'on his oath that the man was drunk. He (witness) held no very strong views about the prohibition question.

Scrgt. Matthews gave evidence that I complaints wore made about the defandaut. Ho did not sc-e him before j going into the hotel. He went down j to the hotel and wont in by the side door. Defendant was there alone; he j had a glass of beer before him.. The j man was obviously under the influence of liquor. He asked the accused where j he got the beer; Connolly replied that jit had been loft on (he counter, j To Mr Hussey: Ho went to the hotel j on complaints being made; he went inI fa the hotel immediately on arrival, i The barman denied haying served the j man with liquor; the glass of beer had - j been left on th 0 counter. Ho did not *■ ( see Mr John Turnbull in the bar on j that occasion. He thought Mr TurnJ bull a respectable man and had no rea- [ son to doubt that he would speak the I truth. If Mr Turnbull said he was

astonished at the accused being arrested he would certainly be surprised. The accused walked fairly well when he was arrested. He took the accused to the lock-up. where ho gave his name and answered other questions. He (witness) did not know George Taylor; he knew Gilbert Laurenson, but not William Laurenson. Ho knew Thomas O’Connor and William Wright, but did not know Prank Bacon, at least, not by name, he might know him by sight.

J. Sherwin stated ir: evidence that he saw defendant in the public street, he was talking loudly and gesticulating with his arms.

To Mr Hussey: He did not- see accused after he was arrested. When he saw him it was about 4 o'clock. He could not hear what the man was saying. Aceused-rras walking towards the kouth end of the street; he was walking straight. If he had not been making demonstrations he would have thought he was quite alright. This closed the case for the proseeub tiM - , ;, I

Thomas O’Connor, for the defence, said he was a farmer, living at Mataroa. He saw th e defendant on 2Sth April, saw him with the policeman. Ho saw accused before that in front of Wakeman’s Hotel.. He asked him to have a drink, but he did not have a iflrink. The defendant then walked down the street waving his hands; that was net more than five minutes after he (witness) had seen him. Connolly was arrested a few minutes afterwards. The man might have had a. drink or two, but he was very far from being drunk.

To Scrgt. Matthews: He had worked

for Mr Wake man; he knew something about drunken men. He could see that -fhe accused had had a drink. He saw him come out of the hotel, and he said, if they could arrest a man like that, he might b e arrested every day of the •week. He had previously given evidnee for a man who had bon arrested for drunkenness, and had bailed the

man out. Gilbert Laurenson, sworn, said ho saw the defendant on 28th April in front of the Gretna Hotel; bo saw him go into the hotel and saw him come out again a short time afterwards he saw the constable arrest him. He was standing at the door of the Gretna. The accused walked quite straight and appeared quite sober —he walked straight enough, anyway. The man was not talking at the time, and he was not drunk. To the Bench: The man walked straigt into the hotel, and came oat with the police. He was in the hotel about five minutes. He did not think he had time t'o get drunk. William Wright gave evidence that he was barman at the Gretna; he saw the defendant in the bar on the 2Sth inst. The sergeant and constable came into the bar and asked what Connolly was doing. He (witness) was standing in the bar. He saw the accused a few seconds before the sergeant came in; he was standing around a corner of the bar. He saw the police when they first came in. He did not serve the defendant. He had not seen the defendant before that day. He did n’ot clear when the police came in; he did go for beer, but was away only about ten seconds. The police were there when he went, and when he came back. The defendant was quite sober so far aa he could see; he said the beer on the counter was not bis. .Defendant gave answers in an ordinary way, and •had full use 'of his faculties. He (witness) was serving Mr Turnbull when the defendant came in. To Scrgt. .Matthews: He had no knowledge that, the man had been in the bar; he did not remember serving him. The accused never asked (Tor drink. Did not remember seeing defendant before. , Prank Bacon, sworn, said he was a barman at the Gretna. His attention was drawn to the defendant when the police came into the bar. There was a conversation about a drink being in front of defendant. The sergeant asked who served the drink. The man said he had no drink, the drink was not his; the man was perfectly sober, about that he had no doubt whatever. To Sergt. Matthews: A man was drunk when he coal’d not stand and converse. He certainly w’otild have served the .defendant. The defendant was th only man in the bar when the police came in. Defendant may have had a glass of beer, but ho was not under the influence of liquor. He had met many men who had addressed the road and waved their hands that, were not drunk. Thomas Barry gave similar evidence, that there was no appearance of the man being under the influence of liquor. In answer to the Bench, the witness said he was in the bar the whole time. Connolly was only in the bar two or three monutos. He would hare heard any noise if nois e had been made. John Turnbull deposed that he saw tho defendant for the first time in the Gretna Hotel on the previous day; be was about throe yards away.. He saw the police come in. He heard no singing whatever. He heard a conservation in which tho sergeant asked Sheehan who served the drink + o Connolly. He did not see the beer. The man said ho was not served with any drink. Tho sergeant asked the barman whether he served it, and the barman denied having served the beer. He took particular notice of the man when the police took him. By the way the man answered questions he would say he was perfectly sober; he showed no signs of drink whatever.'Connolly was standing 'facing the sergeant; away from the bar counter. The sergeant, defendant, and Mr Jorgensen were standing not far from each other. He would deity the statement that the man was drunk.

To Sergeant Matthews: He had just gene into the bar when he saw the police come in. The accused was then standing about a couple of feet from •the counter.. It was by his own wish ho was giving evidence.. He did not consider the inffh was drunk in the street, and he did not consider he was drunk in the bar. astonished when he heard that thd man had been arrested for drunkenness. To the B'ench: Ho thought he could tell when a man was drunk, and when he was sober. Ho saw the defendant aiKvching up the street; he was walk-

ing in quite a smart manner. The constable did not have hold of the man at

all when he saw him: it was not neces sary to hold the man’s arm.

The Bench considered, the evidence favoured the police, and that they were quite justified in arresting him. They were justified in taking notice of the man when their attention had been called to him. Other evidence raised very great doubt as to the man’s condition, making it appear that the man was not drunk, although he had acted in an unusual manner, and had waved his hands about. The Bench, however, considered the weight of evidence was in favour of the defendant, and, therefore, they could not do otherwise than dismiss the case against him.