AH LOP IN COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XVI, Issue 4966, 4 March 1895, Page 3

AH LOP IN COURT.

SERIOUS CHARGES AGAINST MASTERTON YOUNG MEN. At the Masterton S.M. Court on afternoon before Mr T. S.M., the hearing of the charge of alleged wilful trespass, brought by Ah Lop against a number of young men, wns resumed. Sergeant Henry McArdle, called, slated that on Sunday, 17th, he was informed by Ah Lop that a number of young men had created a disturbance in his shop the previous evening, and also that ho had missed several articles. Witness, from information received, went to see the man Nicholson about the matter, who informed witness that the whole affair was simply disgraceful on the part of the accused, and considered the Chinaman to have kept his temper well. Was of the opinion that the accused were deserving of six months. Had observed Welch with his foot in the door. Was standing

on the footpath at the time and saw the whole affair. Witness had also tfnterviowed Greatliead and McCorktndalo, who gavo very different ' accounts of the affair to the otate-

ments they had made in the witness box. ML Wm. Reynolds, re-called, corroboWatcd the evidence of the previous witness, who stated that Welch remarked, when being pushed out, " do not force mo out, as I will go out out quietly if asked, hut will not be shoved out" Knew that Nicholson and Boddington came to the shop, Nicholson remaining on the footpath while Boddington purchased some fruit, which witness did not notice being served, They only remained for a few minutes, leaving the shop together. Henry Greatliead, rc-called,stated in answer to Mr Bunny, thai lie was

a friend of the accused, none of whom had tried to influence his evidence. They had certainly informed him that they had all been summoned by Ah liop, with the exception of King, and bad asked him to tell King to goand get his summons too. Emmett asked witness if he had cut Ah Lop's choose while in the shop. Wrigley met witness one day, when he said, " I have been summoned for being at Ah Lop's the other night. We'll go as high as a kite." This witness I fnderstood to mean that they would] rap in for it. Met four of the accused in the Club Hotel. Did not expect to meet the accused there. Witness eventually saw King, and told him about the summons. King said he did not remember being at the Chinaman's on the night stated. Witness had not been asked to give evidence according to the wishes of the accused. Constable May stated that the informant came to his house on the night in question and made a complaint which cauFed him to dress with a view of going to Ah Lop's s,\op. Shortly after that Ah Lop caiiie hack and ho found there was no ii rcessity to go out. After the summonses were served, wituess saw several of the accused and the witnesses taking together, but did not hear any d the conversation. All the accused were anxious that King should get his .summons to save an adjournment. .His Worship said that as far as Jfce evidence went it appeared there ™s no case against Wilton and

Kiiiij. I Mr Pownall said he did not wish ] the case against them withdrawn as ( he wished them to give evidence. ] His Worship: Youcau call them to f give evidence in any case. , Mr Bunny objected to the pro- , posal to dismiss the two named, and j contended that they were all a party { te the offence. , His Worship ruled against Mr Bunny, and dismissed the informa- . tion against Wilton and King, who j -were discharged. , For the defence, Mr Pownall said f he felt considerable doubt, and he j thought the Court would also have ( a doubt whether the case came ] within the particular section of the | Act mentioned, and asked the Court . to consider this poiut. He felt sure . that he would be nhle to show that , the informant had greatly exaggerated the case The evidence of Mr Boddington, which appeared { to be fairly given, did not hear out ( the statement that the language of ( iJv'elch, was such as given by the , ■informant. Herbert Welch called, said he had , no conversation with any of the wit- , nesses for the prosecution. He admitted being in company with the other accused on the Saturday evening in question, and that they had gone to the Chinaman's shop, Had not spoken to Nicholson, nor did he hear any of the others speak to him regarding this case. Emuiett bought a water-melon and they got the change in matches. They divided the melon and ate it in the shop. Ah Lop did not object. Did not see any of the melon thrown about; there might have been a few seeds dropped on the floor. Witness also got a banana from Wrigley which, as far as he knew, wae given by the informant, Saw Boddington come into the shop and purchase some apples, one of which fell on the floor, witness said that he would not take an apple that ■dropped on the floor. Afterwards witness saw Greatbead and two others come back into the shop. Witness and his companions left the . shop soon after Boddington. On Weaving the shop the informant "uight hold of witness by the arm, when he requested Ah Lop to leave Mm alone, if he wanted him toleavo to say so and he would go. Did not attempt to resist or strike Ah Lop, neither did he use any obscene language. The informant did not touch .any of the others. Wilton and King Jiad already left the shop. After they left tho shop they came towards the Post Office, There was no rowdyism, By Mr Bunny: Had been in company with the other accused during ■ ti?o evening, they were perfectly sober. They might have had one drink hut not more. Did not see Wrigley get the bananas Did not hear A"h Lop object to the rind of the melon being thrown outside. Whan he spoke of" barracking "he referred to the occurrence of the apple which dropped on the floor, witness did not use any abusips language and did not ask for any from the Chinaman. Could pit say he did not give the others any bananas. Did not ask the Chinaman to shout cigarettes. Ah Lop did not ask them to leave the shop before the time that was mentioned, when Ah Lop caught witness by the arm. Would swear that the Chinaman did not go in the back premises when they were in the shop. Did not block thfl door as stated by other witnesses,' The informant did not leave them in the shop by themselves. X)id not see the twine box (produced) in the shop. They did not take a Jjnife belonging to the informant.

When passing the shop again thoy did not stand in front of it, nor did any of them try the door which was shut

Thomas Wrigley said he was a rabbitor. Did not remember talking to Nicholson about the caso, He only told Grcathead to tell King to get his summons. This was theonly conversation thatliatl taken place on the caso with the witness. [The witness corroborated the evidenco of Welch.] The doors of the Chinaman's shop were open and tho windows were lighted up. Welch was the last to leave the shop, but there was no disturbance, evidently the Chinaman was offended by the reference made by Welch. At witness' suggestion, the Chinaman shouted bananas and he believed they had one each all round. Witness had bananas from another party in the shop. The one he had from the Chinaman he gave to Welch. By Mr Bunny: They had been together several hours during the evening. They had one liquor in the Star Hotel, this was the only drink they had that evening. Did not himself, nor did he see the twine cannister thrown into tho street by any of the others. Boddington was in error in saying that Welch had the door blocked with his foot. Boddington was not there when the Chinaman put his hand on Welch's shoulder. Welch did not use abusive or threatening language to Ah Lop,

I Constable Lawlor said he was on duly on the night in question, and passed the Chinaman's shop frequently during the evening, The last time he passed was about - 20 minutes to 12 o'clock. He also passed between 10 and 11 o'clock. There was no disturbance. He did not see any of the accused in the shop during the evening. G. H. Yiites, farmer, remembered the Saturday in question, He saw the three accused—Welch, Wrigley, and Einmctt—in the Chinaman's shop. Witness was riding past. The doors were wide open and the shop lighted up, Witness had called out" Good-night "to Emmett. John Emmett, compositor, said he had no conversation with Nicholson last Saturday night, nor did be bear of any conversation with the others, lie had not spoken to any of the witnesses about this case, [The witness also gave a general corroboration of the evidence of Welch and Wrigley.] The three who had given evidence for the prosecution were in j the shop all the time the accused were there with the exception of three or four minutes. There was no had language and no row. They were not asked to leave the shop previous to the Chinaman putting his hand on Welch's arm. Was aware that Peat went to see tho Chinaman about the matter, though it was not by instructions from witness. Told Peat that the Chinaman was going to summon them and he had been to sec about it. This was a little before twelve, Mr Peat went also to interview the Chinaman shortly after, though witness had not prompted him to do so, May have asked one of the witnesses if he had not heard himself and mates were going to be summoned by the Chinaman. Could not say positively that he had spoken to Greatliead and McCorkeudale about the matter. Purchased a melon and divided the samewith his mates, butcould not say how long they were engaged in eating it. Rememhered Wrigley asking the Chinaman to shout, and the Chinaman gave away some bananas. Nobody asked the Chinaman to shout cigarettes, Had not been told to leave the shop, either before or after the Chinaman took hold of Welch to put him out. Attached no importance to the proceedings of the evening. Merely enquired from the Chinaman, how proceedings were going, out of curiosity. Arthur Russell, bricklayer, deposed that on the evening in question, he was passing by the Chinaman's shop at eleven o'clock. The shop was open, and he observed Emmett, Wrigley and Welch, sitting down in the shop, eating some fruit. Everything within appeared peaceful and still. The Cuiuamau, apparently, was not in the shop. No people were standing outside the shop at the time ho passed, Was going to his home at the time. Walter J. Harris, cab-driver, stated that he was passing the shop on the night in question, at about eleven o'clock, and noticed Emmett standing in the doorway, No disturbance was going on inside the shop, and no people were standing around the front, on the footpath. John King, labourer, stated that on the night in question he, went into the Chinaman's shop for a wafer-melon, Whilst at the shop, heard the Chiuamau tell them all to leave, which most of them did, Welch remained to the last, when the Chiuamau took hold of him to put him out. Did not hear anyone ask the Chinaman to shout, though he received a banana from Wrigley, which, no doubt, had been shouted by the Chinaman. Welch did not swear at the Chinaman wlion caught hold of. Did not think he gave the Chinaman any provocation.

This concluded the case for the accused.

His Worship in giving judgment, said he was of opinion that purchasers of fruit were not regarded as trespassers when they were in a shop for lona Jldc purposes, so long as the owner did not object to sell the same to them. But when, as in the present case, purchasers were ordered off the premises for any reason the proprietors saw fit, they had a right to leave as requested, Considering the accused on one side, apparently a number of respectable young men, and the solitary individual on the other was a Chinaman,tho whole affair was simply disgraceful The evidence against Welch was somewhat of a more conflicting nature than that brought against the other two. It was apparent that all the accused had caused considerable annoyance in not leaving when requested to do so, and as they were not there with intent to purchase, it could be only treated as trespass, considering they were ordered by the proprietor of the shop to leave. Tho whole three of the accused would be convicted of the charge of trespass, and a penalty of #2 would be inflicted in the case of Herbert Welch, who waß apparently the ring-leader, and £1 each in those against Thos, Wrigley and John Emmett, tho to cany costs. rDBTHIijE.CIJAIIfItS.

The five previous accural were further charged with feloniously taking a £, 1 note on the 3ank of New South Wales from the till of Ah Lop, on the Saturday night whon the alleged disturbance jtook place. Mr Pownall entered a formal plea I of Not Guilty, " '" Ah Lop, tho prosecutor, sworn, said oji the Saturday evening in question, a b.oy nam?/} Holmes had i given'him a pound in payment of Borne nine shillings. Observed the ,note from time to time in the till,

and was sure the note was there after eleven o'clock, when he went into the back premises to get the slick to put the accused out of the shop. He wns away in the back for aboutfive minutes, Any ofthonccnsedi could have taken the note as it lay in an open till under the counter. Locked up the premises when ho went for the police. There were two counters in tho shop, and the till in the outer counter contained two cheques and some silver, none of which had been disturbed, There was some silver along with the note which was stolen, but could not say whether any had been taken as ho had not previously counted it over. : The reason he charged the accused with the theft was that the accused were the only people in the shop at the time he left it during the night. At this stage His Worship objected to the case proceeding any further, as it was simply ridiculous for a charge of theft to be brought against the accused on such grounds, and no evidence to substantiate the fact that the money was all safe until the informant left his counter. He would dismiss the informations laid against the accused. He would also award costs against the informant and at the same time warn him that in the future he was to be more careful in bringing such serious charges against persons, without substantial evidence to uphold the same,