TARANAKI HOTEL CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 214, 31 August 1908, Page 3

TARANAKI HOTEL CASE.

I STIERIXG IT UP AGAIN. A Kli-IIEAIUiNU UIiFUHED. P led for, but ob eetion had been tak.-n o account of delay and becaus tl e ZrTd'«' Ce a " Cg , ed t0 have be ™ 1 covered was not before the Court on

The affidavit was sworn ))y _ M I o Donne 1, barmaid, f„ nn ,,| v of \\ v s ifl staled that , or sIA m t -j • the end „f j IIBe sh( , m P H employment of George Bil „ ' t »ell Brett, Milne, Bradbury, and MeCi.appeared to be suffering from the efnotX ? 'r™ r ! " 8 1,01 lt ' » nu d ™> k «»'V >on-alcoh„|,c 1np,,,,-. ,„ , lansi , (i * alleged that Mrf'leland was not sol^r but whilst he was there l,e had , bout , ten ro U m| s of drinks. J„ clause 8 si, U eged that Bishop was in and out of her bar during (he day. All the men lutt about noon, and the next she saw [ ol them was when "l'lain Bill" came or a l,„ttl e of champagne for McCkaud; M,c refused to serve the man, toi he was drunk. U,. went away, saving he could get the drink elseVhe.'e. She had tea with Bradbury and ltusse'l and neither was under the inlluenee of ■quor. She believed Mct'lcland was fo"re e tea aW " y 3 ' '"* f " eßd3 S '' ol ' tly bc--Mr Grey said, and his Worship eoncurred, that there were two points to eons.der. First, it must he clearly shown ■ mat this evidence was not in the pos- . session of the party applying and could not have been procured by ordinary dili-1 gence for the first trial; and, secondly, that the newly-discovered evidence was such that, had it been produced at the first trial, would have led the Bench to come to a different decision. Mr. Grey I referred at length to what he considered had been unjustifiable delay in bringing the proceedings in the first'case. It was alleged that the offence was committed on June I,3th, and if there had been an offence Sergeant Haddrell himself had been a witness of it. Russell, the "star-' witness for the prosecution, was a resident of New Plymouth, and had be.n | about the town-ior weeks after the occurrence. Then he went to Wellington, where, it was alleged, he met with an accident. The first steps in this case were taken on July Oth, when an information was laid by Constable Mclvor who was also present at the hotel at the time of the committal of the alleged offence. Upon the day appointed "for the hearing un adjournment for a daywas granted, owing to the absence of the Magistrate from New Plymouth. Then a further adjournment was granted because of the absence of Mr. Quilham, and still again, on the application of the police, another adjournment to enable the police to produce Russell. Eventually the case came on for hearing on 29th July. The police, instead of setting to work right away to collect evidence, seemed to have pursued n policy of masterly inactivity. Th.>y i didn't try to get the evidence of this girl, or to ascertain her whereabouts. The sergeant of police, sitting in his office chair, could have got this evidence l>y means of his subordinates. Could i:. then, reasonably be urged that any diligence had been shown' He pointed out that the evidence of this girl was quite at variance with that of Russell, the chief police witness. What was the value of such evidence? After quoting authorities and further reviewing th'g. allegations in the affidavit, Mr. Grey said he thought he was justified in asking the Court to dismiss this application for a rehearing of a- trivial case that the police were endeavoring to invest with undue importance. He called

George Bishop, the licensee of the Taranaki Hotel, who said that the police frequently visited his house, and he had on occasions seen n constable talking to this barmaid whose evidence had been read. The police had never enquired from him her whereabouts. Before she left for Dunediu there iwas a sort of "send-off" in her bar, and her destination was spoken of. He was sure that either Constable Rowlands or Constable Flanagan was present, or both, in plain clothes.; The Bench: There's .no reason why they shouldn't lie.

To Mr. Quilliam: Witness said lie knew whore the girl was all along. Ho could not be expected to explain what his counsel had said in the trial. He did not remember Mr. Grey complaining that his ease suffered from the fact that this s irl could .not be found. Ilradbury and MiClebuid were in the private bar for several hours on 13th •lune. McCleland was not drunk in his house that day. He remembered Mrs. McCieland, wife of one of the parties mentioned in the aflidavit. coming to <*. j e him in connection with the happenings of 13th June.

This line of examination was objected to, as not being relevant to the matter before the Court, the Magistrate .remarking that counsel was not entitled to go into other matters that had cropped up or were likely to crop up it the rehearing, if granted. The Bench: Do you say that by ordinary diligence the police could not have procured this evidence? Mr. Quilliam said he certainly said so, apd would prove it. In the first place, the first knowledge, of the alleged offence came from the happenings in the room upstairs. How were the police to connect the barmaid with that?

The Magistrate thought the barmaid should have been the very first witness approached. iMr. Quilliam stated that the Supreme Court sessions intervened between June 13th and the date of the barmaid's departure, and this dislocated the sergeant's work. The Magistrate: With a smart lot of police such as we have here 1 think they could have go't this evidence if they had tried—Supreme Court or no Supreme Court. Mr. Quilliam said as to whether the new evidence was material, that w.is for the Bench to decide. He concluded by remarking that it was the bouuden duty of the police to sec that the licensing laws were observed andjicensed houses properly conducted. If the Magistrate came to the decision that in the interests of justice this case should be further investigated the police were prepared to go on; if not, they were satislied that they bad done their duty, and, Hie responsibility lay with his Worship. | His Worship remarked that the police | had not availed themselves of their right I of general appeal to the District Court, | where they could have called any fresli j evidence by permission of the Judge. He was bound by authorities who stated that only under very exceptional circumstances should a rehearing be granted. Mr. Grev had said this was a

trivial ease So it was, to the police; but not to the. licensee. A conviction illicit carry with it an endorsement ■'■ th£ license", which could have very farreaching effects. To his mind, this evidence could have been adduced at the fust trial. In fact, lie was astonished that the evidence of the barmaid had I not been procured. At the hearing his. I -Worship had found that Bradbury was not drunk, and even if he were, there was no evidence to show that Bishop ! knew of it. The evidence of this new i witness stronglv confirmed him in the opinion he had* then formed. He dil not consider tlie fresh evidence warranted him in putting Bishop on trial I rmiu in a matter of such importance I in himself and of so little importance Ito the police. He decided against tie J applicant on both points.