RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume XIII, Issue 4252, 17 August 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS BAY. (Before H. Kenrick, Esq., E.M. DRUNKENNESS. Charles Smith, charged with, drunkenness, was fined 5s and costs. BREACH OF THE LICENSING ACT. John Tonkin, licensee of the Hazelbank Hotel, was charged with selling drink to Charlotte Hicks on Sunday, she not being a bona fide traveller.

Defendant pleaded guilty ; he did not think he was doing any harm. The liquor was supplied about three o'clock on Sunday afternoon to the little girl, who asked for some beer for her mother's dinner. It was a very unjust Act. Mr Kenriek : That is a matter of opinion. It is your duty to obey it. fined 5? and costs and the conviction to be recorded on the license, the Magistrate remarking that he made the penalty so light, because the heaviest part of the punishment was the record on the license, three of which would lead to forfeiture.

CHARGE AGAINST SERGEANT o'gOADY. Thomas O'Grady was charged, on the information ot Detective Doolan, that he did on the Thames, on or about the 20th day of July, 1881, unlawfully make an assault upou Harriet Eyre, with intent to violently, and against her will, carnally know her.

Mr Thomson conducted the prosecution, and Mr Edwin Hesketh watched ihe case on behalf of Sergeant O'Grady. Mr Thompson said that when he was in Australia a charge was laid against Sergt. O'Grady, and the officer acting in his (Mr Thompson's) stead thought it was too serious a matter to pass over. He made inquiries, and upon returning to Auckland from the Thames he found the papers lying in his office. These, upon perusal, he felt bound to forward to Welliogton, the result being instructions to bring this case. Mr Thompson then detailed the circumstances of the alleged assault. Ho explained that the witnesses would prove that Sergt. O'Grady carried Mrs Eyre into the bedroom and endeavored to do what is set forth in the charge, but that she successfully resisted and got away; that he repeated the attempt; that he called her a little fool, and asked her if he came back in the evening would she consent.

Mr Hesketh asked Mr Thompson to state that the charge was laid by exdetective Farrell.

Mr Kenrick said that was unnecessary, as the case would be decided upoa the evidence; it did not matter who instigated the proceedings. '

Mrs Kyre was called, but before giving evidence, she requested the Court should be cleared. This was done.

Harriet Eyre, wife of James Eyre, shoemaker, residing at Shortland, deposed —She had known Sergt. O'Grady several years. In July, 1881, she was residing in Sealey street, in a three roomed housesitting room in front, kitched at back, and bedroom between. There is a short

passage between sitting room and kitchen. The big flood occurred on July l6th. On the 20th, saw Sergt. O'Grady at her house. He came into the house by the back door. He said, "Well, how are yon getting on ?" and took a seat by the kitchen door. She replied they had water all over the house. He said, " Have you no fire?" She replied, "O yes, in the other room." He gave the children money, one sixpente and the other three pence, and sent them for lollies. He then put his hand on witness's shoulder. He was a little familiar but nothing very serious; he kissed her. Took her up and carried her into the bedroom. She did not say anything or make any fuss. She told him to let her go, which he did. He went away when she told him to go, nor did he do anything else. Never saw him again to speak to until Mr Eyre brought him to the house.

Mr Thompson said this was so totally different to the written statement of the witness that he had no alternative but to treat her as a hostile witness.

A written statement signed by herself was identified by the witness.

Examination continued: She was so much., agitated at the time she made the statement that she did not know what she said. She could not say whether she told Mr Thompson that Mr O'Grady threw her on the bed and endeavored to have connection with h< r against her will. She did not remember saying that he threw her on tie bed a second time, and endeavored to have connection with her. His trousers were not undone. If she had known as much as she did now she would not have made any statement. This case was simply spite on the part of a brother officer.

The magistrate at this stage ordered the doors of the Court-room-to be opened, and a large number of the public came in. She did not remember telling Mr Thomson on the Bth inst. that Sergt. O'Grady had endeavored to have connection with her twice.

Mr Thomson declined to examine the witness further.

Mr Hesketh applied to have the crossexamination postponed until the other witnesses had been examined.

Mr Thomson objected to this as an unusual course.

Mr Kenrick said he would prefer that Mr Hesketh should not do so, and that gentleman dpcided to forego the cross" examination altogether.

James Eyre, bootmaker, deposed,—Tn July last year he was in Auckland seeking employment, and then received a letter from his wife; did not return immediately, but about a fortnight afterwards. Went and saw Sergt. O'Grady. Did not speak to him at that time about his wife. About two days after that, complained to him about alleged misconduct to his wife. Witness here said that Sergt. O'Grady had not degraded his wife in any way. He would rather go to Mount Eden than press any charge against him.

Examination continued—He complained that he had insulted his wife.

Question put—What was the nature of the insult ?

The statements made are wrong all through.

Mr Thomson—We wish to see what is right now.

Examination continued —He charged him with throwing witness' wife down on the bed, and doing it a second time. Did not charge him with attempting to have connection with her. Made those charges in consequence of what his wife told him on his return from Auckland. Sergt. O'Grady denied the charge. The sergt. never admitted throwing her on the bed.' He admitted picking up the wife, but he did not admit throwing her down. Have received money from Sergt. O'Grady; £7 in cash. Keceived £6 two or three days after he accused him of the offence, and £1 a week or two afterwards. Sergt. O'Grady promised to give £14 more. He gave the money because witness was in trouble. He did not say anything about saying nothing more about the charge. He gave the money because witness had some little bills to meet. Remembered the bailiffs being in the house in the month of September for rent. Applied to Sergt. O'Grady then for assistance. He said, " I am in trouble, and I consider you are the only friend I have in this part of the island." Did not remember saying, " I consider you have a right to help me out of it." Sergt. O'Grady settled the amount. Did not know the amount.

' Cross-examined —Hare known O'Grady 21 years. Am now 33. Knew him in Christchurch. Came to the Thames two years ago. Sergt. O'Grady knows his parents and wife's pareuts. They had treated each other as friends previously oq the Thames, and he considered the Sergt. A3 such. It was because of this that he said to the Sergt. that he was his only friend. He had frequently gone to him for assistance before, and received it. Had no other reason for going to him for money on the occasions in question. When first spoken to O'Grady denied having used any violence to his wife. When he received bis wife's letter in Auckland he was at work, but he was not when he returned. He received warning on Thursday, and returned on Monday. He was then for a considerable time out of employment, and it was then he went to Mr O'Grady for money. He had been married about ten years. He had made statements to the police, once in Mercury Bay, and once in Auckland; these were not correct. The first was not written in his presence. He was not seeking to prosecute O'Grady ; anything but that; he had not set the law in motion, and that was because he had no ground for doing so. The police sought him out constantly. He felt after all the conversation he had had with his wife that he, as her husband, had no ground whatever for prosecuting Sergt. O'Grady. When out of employment he went to the Sergt. and asked for money, but simply as a loan. The £>, £6, and the promissory note to Mr Nodder were nt given as hush money for anything Sergt. O'Grady had done to his wife. He applied to Mr Carpenter and others for money at'"', the,, same time. Would never have thought of instituting proceedings against O'Grady. The witness here said voluntary that it had been stated the officials had offered him money to press the charge, but this j was incorrect. The bailifff- Alexander, offered him his expenses on Saturday last to clear out.

The statement made to the police, and signed by witness, was read. To the Bench : Never made any statement to the police which would justify them in laying the present charge. Never told Sergeant O'Grady that he had attempted to hare connection with his wife against her will, not had his wife made any statement to him to that effect. Never stated to anyone that his wife had complained of O'Grady having attempted to hnve oonnoction with her. He told

Constable Kelly, of Mercury Bay, that he had no grounds of complaint against O'Grady. The police first visited him in Mercury Bay. Ho had always been asked to make a statement, but had never volunteered anything. The Magistrate said the case was an extraordinary one in every way. The charge was of a class in which the complaint is laid soon after the offence, but in this instance twelve months had elapsed. However, it was not pretended that the parties themselves were prose* euting, and, as he understood it, the information had been laid by the police with a view of investigating the conduct of one of their own officers, but on the strength of information furnished them by husband and wife. The woman now denies that the offence had been attempted* —she says that Sergeant O'Grady was an old friend, that he carried her into the room and kissed her, but when told by her to go, he went. The husband said the wife had never complained to him, nor he to Sergeant O'Grady or the police. He further says that one of the statements made by him to the police—that made to Constable Kelly at Mercury Bay —is incorrect, and that the constable did not write it until after he left him. He was of opinion that, in the evid« ence, there was not the slightest ground for the charge. The most that could be said was that the Sergeantj^ had been indiscreet in kissing her as aii old friend, and he was not sure that' he was justified in saying even that. Aa for the difference between the statements made to the police and the evidence, that was a matter between the police and the witnesses ; he could only go by the sworn evidence heard there to-day. The evidence did not bear against the Sergeant's character as a policeman in any way, and there was not the slightest imputation on his character.

Mr Thompson said the case would never have been brought if it had not been for the statement of the last witness to the police. And even although he bad been instructed to go on with the - case, he would not have done so had not the statement of the first witness tallied with her husband. He would admit the case bad broken down, and he was glad to see Sergt. O'Grady get clear, although it would have been more satisfactory if it had been in some other form.