Michael Richard HENNESSY

GROWN WITNESS DENIES POLICE EVIDENCE

Assault and Robbery Charge CONFLICTING STATEMENTS IN MATTER OF DRINKS

THERE was an excessive conflict of evidence presented to the Police Magistrate, Mr. M. J. Ryan, at the Forbes Petty Sessions on Tuesday when an assault and robbery case was heard. The defendant was one, John Clement Hay, aged 21, who was charged with the assault and robbery of his friend,

Thomas Henry Roberts, in a lavatory in the backyard of the Club House Hotel, Forbes, on the afternoon of Saturday, March 20. Hay pleaded not guilty to the charge. At the conclusion of the Crown case, Mr. Meillon, who appeared for Hay, submitted to the P.M. that no case had been made out against his client, and asked that he be discharged. Mr. Ryan maintained that a prima facie case of assault had been submitted by the police, and amended the charge to one of common assault. Later he convicted Hay and imposed a fine of £2, with £4/11/8 costs.

Mr. R. Meillon appeared for the defendant, and the Crown case was in | the hands of Inspector D. O’Connell. CROWN CASE John Keith McLean, constable of police stationed at Forbes, stated that at about 3.30 o’clock on the afternoon of March 20, as a result of something he was told, he proceeded to Johnson Street, Forbes, accompanied by Constable Reeves. He saw the accused, Hay sitting in a motor lorry in front of his home. He told the defendant

he wanted to see him. Hay got out of the lorry and walked a few yards away. He then informed defendant that he was making enquiries concerning a man named Roberts, who said he had been assaulted and robbed by him in the backyard of the Club House Hotel that afternoon. Roberts claimed that he had been relieved of £2/10/ from the fob pocket of his trousers. In reply the defendant denied that he had either assaulted or robbed Roberts. Continuing, the witness stated that he asked Hay if he had seen Roberts that afternoon, and the former replied that he had seen Roberts that morning when they had had a few drinks together, later going to Hay’s home for dinner. Asked if he would go to the Police Station and see Roberts, the defendant said he would. They did so, and on being confronted

with Hay, Roberts said, “That is the man who assaulted and robbed me this afternoon.” The defendant made no reply. Prior to going to the Police Station, said McLean, he had asked the defendant if he had gone to the Club House Hotel that afternoon, and if he had gone into the lavatory with Roberts. Hay said he had done so and that they had had a bit of an argument concerning some money Roberts owed a man named Gage. They were alone in the lavatory, Hay told him. After Hay arrived at the Police Station he was warned in the usual way and asked if he wished to make a statement, which he did ( produced ). SHOWED SIGNS OF DRINK At the time of his arrest, said witness, Hay showed definite signs of having had strong drink, but was not drunk. The trousers he was wearing bore stains which appeared to be blood. His underpants were similarly marked and there was blood on his left hand. Hay said he could not account for the stains. The trousers and shirt worn by Roberts were also stained with what appeared to be blood. The four articles of clothing were removed from both Roberts and Hay and taken to Sydney for analysis by Constable Hennessy. A certificate had been returned stating that the stains were made by human blood. Cross-questioned by Mr. Meillon, witness stated he first saw Roberts at the Police Station about 2.45. He came to the station alone and was not under arrest. He would not say that Roberts was drunk. He was not bleeding at the time he came to the station, but had a bruise and a scratch about half an inch long under the left eye. In his opinion the cut could account for the blood on his clothes. Further questioned by Mr. Meillon, McLean said he had made certain

enquiries about Hay before he saw him in the lorry. The latter informed him that he was told the police were looking for him and he had gone home. Hay had definitely been drinking. In reply to a question by Inspector O’Connell, witness stated that defendant had no money in his pockets when arrested. Leslie Reeves, police constable, deposed that about 3 p.m. on Saturday, March 20, from something he was told, he accompanied a man named Roberts to the Police Station. Accompanied by Constable McLean, he later proceeded to Johnson Street and saw a man named Hay sitting in a motor lorry in front of his residence. McLean told Hay they were making enquiries concerning a man named Roberts who alleged that he (Hay) had assaulted and robbed him of 50/ that afternoon in

the backyard of the Club House Hotel. Defendant denied the allegations. Witness then corroborated the evidence of Constable McLean regarding the conversation that took place with Hay. He, too, was of the opinion that the defendant had been drinking, but was not in what could be termed; a drunken state. In reply to questions by Mr. Meillon, Reeves stated he had first seen Roberts in Templar Street. He was not bleeding at the time, but there was

blood on his nose and eye and his shirt was wet with blood. There were no marks on his face except the cut near the left eye. He did not tell Roberts he looked as if he had been fighting and had better come to the Police Station. Roberts did not have a coat and appeared as if he had been fighting. He did not arrest Roberts, but asked him to go to the station with him. Constable Michael R. Hennessy gave formal evidence of having taken the clothing removed from Hay and Roberts to Sydney for analysis. INFORMANT’S STORY Thomas Henry Roberts, a laborer, living at Sheriff Street, Forbes, stated he was a relief worker. On March 20 he went to the Town Hall to collect his pay (£3/0/2). He met Hay and William Gage there and after getting their pay the three of them went to the P.O. Hotel, where they had three

which he owed him. Gage then left them and he accepted an invitation from Hay to go to his place for dinner. Hay had a bottle of whisky at his home and they had a couple of drinks from it. After dinner, Hay and he went to Jack Hanley’s place. Hanley was not at home, and they talked to Mrs. Hanley. Later, they went down the town and to the Club House Hotel, where they both proceeded to the lavatory in the back yard. While standing in the lavatory, continued Roberts, Hay punched him on the nose and mouth, and he was knocked against the wall. He put up his hands to protect his face when he felt something tugging at his trousers. He said, “Benny, what is the matter with you?” Hay did not reply. He then walked out of the lavatory to the back of the hotel, where the proprietor gave him rag and water to wash his face. In reply to questions by Inspector O’Connell, witness said he noticed his trousers were torn at the fob pocket. He had had 50/ in notes in the pocket. He did not see the defendant after leaving the lavatory. Later he walked into Templar Street, where he met Constable Reeves. He had a conversation with the constable and went to the Police Station. He made a statement to the police. The shirt produced was the one he was wearing at the time of the assault. There was 50/ in notes in the fob pocket of his trousers when he went into the Club House Hotel. He and the defendant were alone in the lavatory. To the PM., Roberts said that he and Hay had had four beers and two whiskies during the day. Cross-questioned by Mr. Meillon, Roberts stated that he and Hay had known each other practically all their lives. They had gone to school together

and had always been on very friendly terms. He had only shouted once in the P.O. Hotel and had spent 1/6 there. He had no silver in his pocket when he went to the Police Station. He should have had 3/6 In silver, but did not know what had happened to it. Neither Hay or himself had had any drinks at the Club House. When he and Hay went to Hanley’s Mrs. Hanley did not tell them they were too drunk to go down the town.

ASSAULT AND ROBBERY CASE 

NO STRUGGLE

Questioned about the assault, Roberts said he did not have an argument with Hay, and he did not tell the police there had been an argument about money. When Hay hit him he made no attempt to resist; he was too dazed. His mouth was cut on the inside, his nose was cut and there was a bruise above his right ear. Blood came from his mouth and nose. There was no struggling between he and Hay. About two minutes after leaving the lavatory he noticed the pocket was torn and the money gone. ‘He did not search the ground or go and look in the lavatory for it. He did not look for Hay. Continuing, Roberts informed Mr. Meillon that he was on his way home when he met Constable Reeves. He had no intention of laying a charge against Hay. Reeves asked him what was the matter and he told him what had happened. He never saw Hay at the Police Station and did not say to the police, “That is the man who assaulted and robbed me.” He was not drunk and had never had an argument with Hay in his life. He could not account for the attack. The last he saw of the 50/ was when he put it in his pocket at the P.O. Hotel. To the P.M., Roberts said he did not see Hay at the Police Station. Mr. Meillon then submitted to the Magistrate that there was no case to answer, and asked him to discharge the information. Throughout the case for the prosecution there had been a great conflict of evidence. Roberts was a very reliable witness. The police said Roberts was not drunk and that he had accused Hay of the assault and robbery when he saw him at the station. Roberts had denied that he ever saw Hay at the station. If Roberts’ evidence was reliable, then the police evidence was not, or vice versa. The P.M. said he was satisfied that an assault had been committed, but there was no evidence to show that robbery had taken place. He would amend the charge to one of common assault.

DEFENDANT IN BOX

John Clement Hay, laborer, a married man, said he had lived all his life in Forbes, and had known Roberts since their school days. He had always been friendly with him and they worked together. They had never had any arguments. He then corroborated the evidence given by Roberts up to the stage when they returned to the Club House Hotel. Here, Hay said, they had had some drink, he did not know how much, but it was more than one. It was not correct that they did not have drinks there. From the bar the two of them went to the lavatory and were there for some time, as he was pretty drunk. They had some hot words and a fight ensued. He did not know who started it, but they got into holts. He did not take any money from Roberts and had no intention of doing so. After the fight he went out the back gate and down to the Royal Hotel, where a chap named Turner came in and told him the police were looking for him and were up at his place. He went home in a motor lorry, and just after he got there the police arrived. He went to the station with them and did not see Roberts. It was not correct that he heard Roberts accuse him of assault and robbery. He had an idea the argument with Roberts was about fighting, he was not sure.

NOT “KING HITTER”

In reply to Inspector O’Connell, witness said on March 20 he had had a good number of drinks and was pretty “full.” When he and Roberts first went to the lavatory he did not see any blood on the latter, but there was some after the fight. He was not very good with his hands, and was not known in Forbes as “The King Hitter.” There were no marks of fight on him the morning after the fight. He could not remember how many drinks they had had at the Club House Hotel, but all the money he had (5/) was gone. Pearl Thelma Hay, wife of the defendant, supported the evidence of Roberts and Hay with regard to their going to her home for dinner. While there, she said, they consumed a little over half a bottle of whisky. Her husband gave her £2/13/ when he arrived home, and she gave him 5/ when he left home after dinner. When the two men arrived at the house they were under the influence of drink, and on leaving were decidedly drunk. They were quite friendly. Her husband had given her no more money. Alice Jane Hanley gave evidence to the effect that the two men went to her home on the afternoon of March 20. They were both drunk and she advised them to go home and have a sleep. Neither of the pair could walk straight. That concluded the evidence, and in his address, Mr. Meillon pointed out to the P.M. the improbability of the bloodstains on Hay’s clothes unless there had been a struggle and the men got into holts, which Roberts denied that they did. It was therefore safe to assume, continued Mr. Meillon, that Hay’s story was correct, and that while under the influence of drink the men had had a brawl, and during the struggle Roberts’ pocket got torn and the money lost. It was also probable, said the solicitor, that when Roberts met the police he was fearful of being arrested and concocted the story to save himself. The whole affair was shadowed in doubt, and his client was entitled to the benefit of that doubt. Mr. Ryan, however, thought otherwise, and convicted the defendant. He imposed a fine of £2.

UNFAIR COSTS

When Inspector O’Connell asked for £4/11/6 costs, Mr. Meillon strongly objected. He said it was grossly unfair to his client that a policeman was sent to Sydney to take the clothes for examination. They could have been sent by registered post for a shilling or two. It was most unnecessary. The P.M. explained that the first charge preferred, that of assault and robbery, was a serious one, and the police had to take all precautions with regard to the exhibits. The costs asked for were allowed, and three months were granted the defendant in which to pay.