Detective John Frederick Hammerly loomed large over the Dunedin criminal fraternity, first appearing in newspaper coverage as being an Auckland constable and transferring to Dunedin in June, 1913 with the title of Acting-Detective. During the Great War, he was something of a scourge to the sly-grogger and those in the business of prostitution as well as the more mundane Dunedin criminals.
But, at some time in his life, he ceased to be a detective. He was committed to Seacliff mental hospital, he became a publican and began to occupy, from time to time, the prisoners dock in Dunedin courts. Why?
"OUTED"
A "Demon" Dismissed
Hammerley and His Hanky-panky.
(From "Truth's" Dunedin Rep.) Recently, Detective John Frederick Hammerley, for many years a detective at Auckland and Dunedin, and well-known as a police constable elsewhere, was dismissed the force, as the result of a series of five charges preferred against him in connection with a Mr. McInnes, a printer, in one case, and his own superior, Sub-Inspector Mathieson, in the other. In the case of McInnes, it was alleged that at the Prince of Wales Hotel in the presence of several people, he
USED OBSCENE LANGUAGE toward McInnes, and engaged with the latter in a "scrap." His conduct and language made it impossible for McInnes to avoid a quarrel, but the latter got the best of it. The "demon" was floored twice. For some time prior to this occurrence, Hammerley was alleged to have had a regular "set" on the printer, but the affair at the Prince of Wales Hotel brought the matter to a head. The charges framed against ,the "demon" relative to McInnes would prove a serious enough matter in themselves for him to wriggle clear of, but pending the inquiry he got himself into a more serious mess. The riot that took place in Rattray street is not so long gone by as to be forgotten by the public. Yet, during that ugly affair Sub-Inspector Mathieson was put to the pin of his collar in an effort to withstand the assault of a numerous crowd. It seems that Hammerly observed his superior officer being surrounded by the mob, and getting assaulted, and he
MADE NO EFFORT WHATEVER to render assistance. On the contrary, he used language concerning the sub-inspector when a lawyer drew his attention to the dangers threatening Mr. Mathieson; language described as of a very insulting nature. The lawyer in question is Mr. D. D. McDonald. Hammerly, in spite of his record as a detective, was fairly in the soup now. At the inquiry, which, by the way, embraced both cases, and all the five charges, D. D. McDonald, McInnes, Harry Andrews, of the Prince of Wales Hotel, and many others gave evidence. The results of the inquiry were forwarded on to the Commissioner, and the "demon" was duly dismissed. Much more could we write in connection with ex-"demon" Hammerly, especially in regard to the damaging nature of the evidence against him by Dunedin citizens. However, the public have been sufficiently protected by his dismissal, and tardy Justice has thereby been carried out. -NZ Truth, 31/1/1920.
Hammerly, shortly after his dismissal, did what many ex-police men did at the time. He took up a hotel license, running the Metropolitan Hotel in Maclaggan street. His wife, Eliza, relinquished the Captain Cook Hotel at the same time, presumably to join her husband at the Metropolitan.
But, perhaps unlike those making similar career moves, Hammerly did not enjoy an easy relationship with the police. It is this writer's suspicion that his late superior, Sub-inspector Mathieson, was not prepared to let bygones be bygones.
A BREEZY PASSAGE
BENCH AND DEFENDANT.
In the City Police Court this morning John Frederick Hammerlv, licensee of the Metropolitan Hotel, Maclaggan street, was charged with selling liquor after hours — i.e., at 11.45 p.m., — on October 25. Defendant asked for an adjournment for a week, as his counsel (Mr Solomon) was unable to attend.
Sub-inspector Mathieson opposed the application. The summons had been issued on Monday, he said, and there had been plenty of time for the defendant to make the necessary arrangements. The real motive for the request for an adjournment had not been disclosed. Witnesses were in attendance, and witnesses in these cases were apt to be interfered with.
Defendant said the reason for the request was as he had stated. “The thief, the murderer, can get a remand,” added defendant, “but it seems that I cannot.” The Magistrate: You have no right to say that.
Defendant: It is true.
His Worship repeated that defendant's statement was a most improper one. “You have had a long experience in court matters, Hammerly,” said His Worship, “and ought to know better than to make such a statement.”
Defendant repeated: “It is true, nevertheless,”
His Worship (angrily): You must withdraw that.
Defendant: I withdraw willingly, and .apologise.
His Worship said he would grant a short adjournment until Monday., If one particular counsel could not attend, defendant would have to make other arrangements.
Hammerly then asked for the adjournment of another case — that against a man charged with being illegally on his (Hammerly’s) licensed premises — in which he was a witness. He was busy at the hotel, and his presence there was necessary to the proper carrying on of his business. Sub-inspector Mathieson opposed this also.
His Worship said that Hammerly had nothing whatever to do with an application for an adjournment in this case. Later the defendant in the case made application on his own behalf for an adjournment.
Sub-inspector Mathieson opposed this application also, and the Magistrate refused it; allowing the matter, however, to stand down till later in the day. -Evening Star, 29/10/1920.
The case was eventually dismissed but in the following month he was charged again, this time with refusing to admit police to his hotel. It is telling that Hammerly, in this case, alleged persecution from his previous employer.
A LICENSEE AND BAD LANGUAGE
Another little case of interest, and one that threw strong sidelights on several things, was that in which Mrs. J. H. Eckhoff was charged with using bad words in Maclaggan-street, to the disgust and annoyance of Frederick Hammerly, licensee of the Metropolitan Hotel.
Publican Hammerly stated that Mrs. Eckhoff and another lady were partaking of some light refreshments in his hotel. He did not want them there, and ordered them out. He had to ask Mrs. Eckhoff to leave several times. She said he could not put her out, and that he was acting spitefully towards her over her son's trouble. He said to her, that was over and gone, and he had nothing now to do with it, as he was not now In the force. She said she would go when she was well ready. "You put your hand on me," she added, "there will be blue murder." "I am able for all the murder you can come at," witness said. As she walked out the door she said, "You are only a _____ _____." (The usual two startling Australasian adjectives, plus the pothouse noun, were alleged). She repeated the bad words outside in the street. He saw a policeman up the street and called out: "Brown, Brown!" Billy Brown and two other policemen came along, but Mrs. Eckhoff denied using the language, and said she called him a dirty _____ mongrel, and that he was one now.
Lawyer Neill (for defendant): Do you use obscene language, Mr. Hammerly? — No.
Have you used the word _____? — Not on that occasion.
Did you not meet this woman's son at Rahiti, and afterwards tell people he was a thief, thus blasting his career? — I met him and shook hands with him, but never said anything of the kind about him.
Did not Mrs. Eckhoff refer to her son and your false reference to him in your hotel, find that she would see the police about it? — She referred to her son, and said the sub-inspector would settle me; but he can't settle me.
Were you sober? — What has that got to do with the charge?
The Magistrate: You must answer the question as to your sobriety, Hammerly.
Witness: All right. I was sober.
Mr. Neill: Why did you order the woman out of your hotel? — I don't want to tell.
You swear you did not use the obscene language yourself instead of the woman? — I am on my oath, Mr, Neill. I have already said so, and now say it again.
You are quite a gentleman!
Edmund Ryan, Central Otago, said he was in the passage of the hotel, and heard the bad language used by the woman. He also heard her repeat it in the right-of-way.
Lawyer Neill: You were getting near a drinking bout? — I was not.
Well, how many women were ordered out, or were there? — One woman.
Hammerly swore there were two? — He may have seen two, I only saw one. (Laughter)
Constable Brown stated that Mrs. Eckhoff said she called Hammerly a dirty mongrel, and she repeated it again before witness. She used no obscene language in witness's presence.
Constables Blair and Hannifin corroborated. Constable Hannifin said that Ryan was in a slight state of intoxication at the time.
The Magistrate, without calling upon Mr. Neill to answer the case, dismissed the information. -NZ Truth, 4/12/1920.
Ex-Police Officers' Row
A Feud In The Force
Hammerly Fined For language, And May Appeal
His Tribute To Linguistic Capacity Of The Gentlemen Of The Law
(From "Truth's" Dunedin Rep.) John Hammerly says that he has heard more "language" inside the police force than outside it; and that he has even heard it from the legal fraternity!
Just a week or two ago John Hammerly, an ex-member of the local section of the detective force, was fined for an offence, and last week, he was called on again to answer a charge of having used indecent language in a public place, Crawford Street, to Robert Brockbank, who was also at one time a member of the police force. During the hearing of evidence it was made clear that bad feeling existed between the two and that it was of long standing.
Robert Brockbank, dairy farmer, said that as he was proceeding from Grant's stables to the Otago Farmers' saleyards he met Hammerly and a man named Heads. Hammerly started to abuse him and used indecent language, which witness wrote on a piece of paper and handed up to the Magistrate. Hammerly wanted to fight him and jumped about and threw his arms abound him. No provocation had been given.
Defendant: Where did you say you were coming from?
Witness: From Grant's stables.
Defendant: From the Southern Hotel.
Witness: I was there before and after.
Defendant: Yes. Let the Court know the truth. Did you speak to me and say, ''Good-day, Jack?"
Witness: No. I wouldn't speak to you.
Defendant: You've never spoken to me since you left the police force?
Witness: No.
Defendant: Why?
Witness: That's got nothing to do with it.
"ASKED TO RESIGN."
Defendant: Why was there an estrangement between me and you when we were both in the police force? Now I want you to be honest, Brockbank.
Witness: You were in charge of the police mess and you were asked to resign.
Defendant: Yes, and what else do you know about me?
Witness: If I were to bring up all I know about you it would last for a week.
His Worship (to defendant): It is suggested that there was trouble between you and Brockbank in the police force. You will be given reasonable opportunity of going into that, but I don't want to hear, any. unnecessary details. Ask questions, but don't make speeches.
Defendant then produced records of a case Police v. Cahill, in which Brockbank was concerned as a police officer. "Why," he asked, "did he bring his civilian brother-in-law, as a witness to prove a charge of drunkenness against a man named Harris, when the man could, in the ordinary course of events, have been seen by four police officers?"
His Worship: You are making speeches, Hammerly. Just ask your questions.
Defendant: Did your brother-in-law act as a witness in that case and get 6/- of Crown money for it?
Witness: He might have got l6/- for all I know.
His Worship: The question is disallowed.
Defendant: Did you go to Berwick to try to detect sly-grog selling? Did you get into trouble over it and have to get Mr. Irwin to get you out of it?
Witness: No.
Defendant: Did you buy a flask of whisky from a publican on the way to Berwick, take it out to Berwick, and say you bought it from a reputable Taieri resident?
This question was also disallowed by his Worship.
Defendant: Were you called upon to resign from the police force?
Witness: I resigned, and got a good discharge, too.
Defendant: You were discharged all right. You were called on to resign.
Witness: It was a voluntary resignation.
Defendant: You are a man of good character?
Witness: If my character is not as good as yours it is pretty poor.
Defendant: My name and character will stand any ventilation that yours will. What led you to believe that I wanted to fight?
Witness: You were jumping round and throwing your arms in the air.
MUTUAL KNOWLEDGE. Defendant: How many times did I use those awful expressions?
Witness: That's your general conversation.
Defendant: How do you know? You haven't been speaking to me.
Witness: When in the police force you used them. I know you.
Defendant: And, my word, I know you, too.
Charles Gibb Warren said he had been at the Otago Farmers' sale, and, while crossing the street, he saw Hammerly and three other men. Hammerly was using some language in a very loud voice and it could be heard some distance away. Witness did not hear a word from Brockbank.
Defendant: Is Brockbank a friend of yours?
Witness: No.
Defendant: No, I'm glad he's not. You're a decent man, Mr. Warren.
When James Stewart, a farmer, was called on to give evidence it was obvious that he knew little of Court procedure, and as a paper was handed to him for the purpose of writing the "language" overheard, he bent down to the Sub Inspector, asking for instructions.
Defendant: Cut that out Donald! You can't get that on to me, telling the witness what to write.
His Worship: To satisfy Mr. Hammerly you had better stand back, Sub Inspector.
Eventually witness said the words.
Defendant: Could Brockbank have walked, away without obstruction? That's a very simple question even if you are a farmer.
Witness: Yes, of course.
Robert Durie, who was in Brockbank's company at the time of the occurrence, said that Hammerly came up and said: "Brockie, you're a cur!" Brockbank said: "It's all right, Jack; I've got nothing to say." Hammerly used bad language, but he was speaking so quickly that witness did not gather all he said. He heard Hammerly say: "I'll fight you for a tenner."
PARLANCE OF THE POPULATION Defendant said that on occasions he did use language such as was complained of. "So do 99 per cent. of the population."
His Worship: "What per cent.? Defendant: Ninety-nine. I heard more of it during my sixteen years in the police force than I have out of it. In this room, when there has been no Magistrate on the Bench, I have heard it used by the legal fraternity.
One of the fraternity: Tut, tut.
Defendant went on to say that Brockbank came up to him and asked him why he did not speak. "Because you're not in my class," was the reply. Brockbank had made an arrest on the Royal Albert Hotel premises for drunkenness because the proprietress had instructed the bar tenders not to serve him, as he was "strapping" up drinks and not paying.
George Heads, a farmer, said he was with Hammerly at the time of the occurrence and there was no bad language used. He would certainly have heard it had it been used.
Defendant said he did not use the words alleged. He knew they were punishable by a severe fine.
To the Sub Inspector: I knew better than speak like that to Brockbank, who would most certainly take action as we were not friends. I'm not such a mug, Donald, as to put my foot into a trap like that.
His Worship said it was quite evident from the evidence that the pair were not on friendly terms. There was a distinct contradiction between the evidence for the prosecution and that for the defence. However, two independent witnesses, Warren and Stewart, said distinctly that they had heard certain language used and he was quite satisfied that Hammerly had used the words complained of.
Defendant: I did not, your Worship.
EXCITABLE! — OH, NO!
His Worship: It is quite apparent that defendant is of an excitable nature. .
Defendant: Not at all, your Worship.
His Worship, continuing, said defendant was charged with having used obscene language, which was punishable by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding £20. If he appeared again he would probably get imprisonment.
Defendant: Thank you, your Worship. you give me the right of a general appeal?
His Worship said he had proposed fining defendant £3 and costs (£2 5s), but if defendant wanted a bigger fine he would increase it.
Defendant: Do it now, please. The fine was then increased to £10 with costs as before. The cost of appeal was fixed at £7 7s.
"Another injustice to Old Ireland," was defendant's parting shot. -NZ Truth, 29/11/1924.
John Hammerley's committal to the asylum at Seacliff is, remarkably, not covered by local or national newspapers. I am aware that my main source of material, the very impressive "Papers Past," has a deficit of around 10% of material due to technical problems, but I would have thought that, Hammersley's court antics having made for such good copy so far, his being sent to Seacliff would have been remarked upon.
Hammersley refers, in 1927, to his having been in Seacliff. It is possible that his already volatile state of mind in the 1920s was pushed a little further by the death of his wife, Eliza, in March 1924.
STOP PRESS ITEMS
HAMMERLEY IN COURT.
John Frederick Hammerley made application in the Police Court tins afternoon for a rehearing of a case in which he was convicted a fortnight ago of disorderly behaviour. In his affidavit he set out, among other things, that he objected to Mr Bundle, S.M., taking the case, but had no objection to Mr Dixon. S.M., taking it, as he was of the opinion that Mr Bundle showed antagonism and hostility towards him. In ordering the affidavit to be struck off the file, Mr Bundle said: “You may consider yourself fortunate that you are not charged with contempt of court on this affidavit.” Hammerly; ‘‘I have already been charged with that at your dictation, and served forty-eight hours at your command.” The application was adjourned till May 6. -Evening Star, 22/4/1927.
JOHN HAMMERLY AND THE WOMAN IN THE CAR
Hammerly's Hope
The Dramatic Touch
Threatened Trouble
(From "N.Z. Truth's" Special Dunedin Representative.)
FOR three solid hours on a recent morning the atmosphere was electrical in the Dunedin Police Court. It was certainly John Hammerly's "busy day." A crowded court and three justices of the peace listened — first amused; then astounded and almost speechless while Hammerly held the floor, cross-examining, browbeating, and shouting that he had not received justice from Magistrates Bartholomew and Bundle.
It is questionable, whether any citizen was ever allowed greater latitude in a court of justice than Hammerly enjoyed. His attitude throughout bordered on defiance, but with an astute appreciation of legal procedure he never went over the limit.
Three cases were called, two in which the police charged Hammerly with disorderly behavior and the third an assault charge brought by Hammerly himself against Charles Samson, a butcher, of Kensington. Hammerly conducted his own cases.
The first charge arose from an appeal for a re-hearing of a case in which Magistrate H. W. Bundle had fined Hammerly £2 and costs for disorderly behavior in North Road on February 22.
The original affidavit for re-hearing was held by Magistrate Bundle to be so insulting that he ordered it to be struck off the file.
He granted the re-hearing F stating: "You may consider yourself fortunate, Hammerly, that you are not charged with contempt of Court on this affidavit."
When the case was called before two justices of the peace Hammerly failed to appear at 10 a.m. and the case was struck out.
He arrived half an hour later and forwarded a further appeal for rehearing on the grounds that his car had been held up.
This was granted and the case came up last week before H. E. Moller, C. G. Smith and J. H. Hancock.
The facts of this case were previously outlined in "N.Z. Truth" of May 6. About 10.30 p.m. on February 22, Herbert Gabriel Hodges was proceeding home in his car along North East Valley Road. He saw a car going along slowly in front, speeded up and passed it. As he did so a voice sang out: "Hey, what the — — do you think you are doing?"
He went on and stopped outside his gate. He was going inside when there rushed towards him a man shouting: "I am John Hammerly, of 210 High Street," and called him a "dirty cur, a rotter" and other names. "You came out and get my number!" he shouted. "I've got yours!"
As he was going out Hammerly was stated to have struck Hodges on the back of the neck and knocked him down.
The defendant then backed up the road, witness following. "I asked him why he hit me." said Hodges, "but he said he didn't."
Hammerly then rushed back to his car, seized the crank handle and threatened to bash his brains out. "I hadn't heard of him before, but I have heard a lot since," said witness.
Hammerly: "You're the only one who hasn't!" Then he thundered out his questions.
Was not the first thing I asked you why you took my line of traffic and nearly caused a collision? — No, the rules allow for my car to pull in front.
Well, seeing I was so brutal as you say, why did you follow me up the road? — You struck me and I wanted an explanation.
How far did I back up the street? — About twenty feet.
What, twenty feet! Twenty yards. You're fogged. You had better get out of that box and let me give my evidence!
Why did you follow me? — You were beyond reason that night. You were mad.
"Yes. I know I have been to Seacliff. Two illustrious doctors, Ross and Evans, and the illustrious Magistrate Bartholomew committed me there! I have also spent 24 hours in gaol."
"You should never have come out," remarked witness.
"Don't you say that to me, Hodges!" Hammerly exclaimed.
"Aren't you notorious for zig-zagging across the road. If I bring Archie Legg to prove he struck you across the face for zig-zagging will you deny it?" — "Yes."
Eliza Ellen Hall said that when she beard the noise she went across to Hammerly's car. There was a woman in it who said to her: "If that is your son, take him away. He is a desperate man."
Hammerly: "Too true!"
She saw Hodges' neck, which was red with bruises and bore signs of assault.
Hammerly: Was I not trying to get away? Was I not retarding uphill and yet he followed me? — You were walking backwards arguing.
During the lull while the next witness had a temporary faint Hammerly turned to Sub Inspector Fahey: "How do you think I am getting on, John? Doing all right, eh?" he inquired.
The Sub Inspector: "Are you prepared to go on with the next case?" — "No, one fight at a time."
Myrtle Hall corroborated Hodges' story. She was in the car with him. She said Hammerly was shouting so loudly that he could have been heard at the top of Stuart Street.
In a long-winded story, with scarcely a pause for breath, Hammerly told how he was going to Evansdale to confirm a sale. He was in a hurry. He let Hodges' car pass, but it immediately took his line of traffic and nearly struck him. "I admit I sang out: 'What the — — do you think you are doing?' " "I did call him a cur. I had a right to. The death-roll is getting too heavy these days. I didn't use obscene language. I might have been abusive. Some people are not fit to drive a wheelbarrow — let alone a car," continued Hammerly.
Sub Inspector: Do you think you have the right to go into private people's property? — Not too much of that John. That legislation is no good.
Did you threaten him with the crank handle? — (Scornfully): I could have done that with my paws!
If you were in such a hurry to go to Evansdale why did you stop at this place and become abusive? — I had every right to. I wasn't abusive.
You said you called him a cur? — No, I said it was a cur's trick.
Hammerly then addressed the bench regarding his right to bring his only witness — the woman in the car — back from Australia.
"I have been denied that right by Mr. Bundle — that illustrious gentleman. I hope you will be kinder."
The Bench: We do not think it is necessary! — I think it is unfair, your worships.
Then followed the story of Hammerly's behavior on April 2 outside the Carlton Hotel. What happened inside forms the cream of the assault charge. Outside Hammerly became the centre of attraction. According to Constable Hastie, he looked as though he had been fighting with the bottle of whisky. According to Constable , Phelan, Hammerly shouted out when a car passed.
He was on point duty; he stopped the car and asked the lady the language used. She blushed and refused to repeat it; she said it was disgusting.
Then Dr. Ross passed and Hammerly hailed him merrily with the salutation: "Hullo, there's golf sticks!" According to both constables, Hammerly was in a drunken condition. The defendant called Senior Sergeant Quartermain, who said that Hammerly called to see him about 8 o'clock. He was then sober, but that was about four hours after the offence.
Hammerly: "In 'order to give your worships the full strength of this case, I will refer to the assault in the hotel."
The Bench: "We do not wish to hear that!"
"Well, I left the hotel at the request of the publican. I certainly referred to Dr. Ross as the little golf player. He used to speak to me before I was committed to Seacliff; he doesn't now. I didn't use any obscene language.
Under cross-examination Hammerly denied having said that the police "could go to the hot place." He also denied having said anything to Mrs. Samson in the car.
In the assault case Lawyer A. G. Neill appeared for the defendant, Charles Samson. Hammerly. conducted his own case.
Right from the outset Hammerly was like a man on hot bricks. He bellowed his story, tried to drown Lawyer Neill's cross-examination and when a question came along that he didn't like excitingly threatened to drop something counsel wouldn't like. In fact, he carried on in a preposterous manner.
"I was in the Carlton Hotel when Samson came in," said Hammerly. '"I heard him say: 'It'll come off soon,' and soon after I got a crack on the back."
With a melodramatic touch Hammerly described what followed. "I grabbed Samson, put him over the bar and was giving him 'Sally up the orchard' when Mr. Richardson, the licensee, grabbed me. Samson gave me 'one-two-three' before he was held back."
"I was drinking with Hammerly when Samson struck him," said Lester Huddleston, a retired sheepfarmer. "There was a scuffle and Richardson grabbed Hammerly. Samson was making for Hammerly, so I intervened."
Hammerly: Did I speak to Samson or give any provocation? — No.
When Arthur Anderson appeared to back up Hammerly's story the latter — all smiles — asked: "Did you see Samson do anything that afternoon?" — "Yes, he whacked you."
"Good boy!" shouted Hammerly. "Did anyone grab me?" — "Yes. Mr. Richardson."
Was I struck again? — I don't remember.
Was my tiepin damaged? — Well, you drew my attention to it afterwards.
"There were no blows struck after I held Hammerly," said John Richardson, licensee. "I did not come into the bar till just then. They had both had enough and I ordered them out."
Lawyer Neill (to Hammerly): Is it not a fact that you have been abusive to Samson? — Just the same as he has been to me.
Didn't you call him "the greasy — from Kensington? — No.
Have you made references to him carrying on with women? — Yes.
Have you had a man named Thompson do odd jobs for you? — Yes, a decent man, too.
Has he ever told you that if you didn't stop making references to women he would not do work for you again? — No.
Isn't it a fact that Samson merely tried to get into the bar next to you because there wasn't room that afternoon? — No, there was plenty of room elsewhere.
Do you think it reasonable to ask the Court to believe, that he struck you without provocation? — Don't ask me such an unreasonable question, Mr. Neill! You've got nothing on me. I'll drop something you won't like.
The Bench: "Stop that, Hammerly! Don't become abusive."
Lawyer Neill : Then Mr. Richardson is telling lies if he says there were no blows struck after he grabbed you? — Yes.
In outlining the case for the defence, counsel stated that Hammerly's record showed he was always the attacker. "His record for assault — — ".
"That's a lie!" interjected Hammerly.
"Order, Hammerly!" came the stern rebuke from the bench.
"He has adopted a system of provocation for weeks," continued Lawyer Neill. "He has been abusive to Samson and made all sorts of references that have made Samson's life unbearable.
"Samson even had to approach the stock buyers, remarking that he would have to leave Burnside — that he couldn't go back under such provocation.
"It was this provocation that made him strike Hammerly," said counsel, "and the Crimes Act holds that this is justifiable."
In giving his story; Samson said that Hammerly apparently "got his back up" because he objected to Alf. Clark buying for him. He heard Hammerly say: "I'm coming Samson, you ——."
"I had to dodge him. He made all sorts of references to women and threatened to fight me.
"In the hotel he said: 'There's the greasy —. I would like to see him go west.' That was too much. I took to him and got the better of it."
John Thompson, a farrrier, said he had heard Hammerly abuse Samson in disgusting language. "I had done some droving for Hammerly and told him to leave oft abusing Samson.
"I reckon he gave Samson sufficient .provocation to strike him — even to shoot him!"
Hammerly: What did I call him? — You said he was "a greasy —."
Has he ever replied? — No, but you said you had such a grievance against Samson that you would kick his dead body.
Hammerly: "That wouldn't hurt him!" At this stage he was several times warned by the bench for being insulting to the witnesses.
Earned A Thrashing
"All right," said Hammerly. "I apologise if I have been insulting to the witnesses. I apologise to your worships, to the Court, and to Mr. Samson."
William Higginson, a retired butcher, said that Hammerly had been a nuisance and had used some filthy language.
"Samson hasn't the pluck of a rabbit or he would have given him a thorough thrashing."
"You buy scragnag sheep and sell them at the wharves," said Higginson in reply to Hammerly.
What, I buy scragnag sheep! Do You know I bought 60 wethers at 25/-? — No, I don't believe you.
"Well, I'll prove it. I'll take action against you."
The Bench: "We don't want to hear anything about that, Hammerly!"
Evidently Hammerly had lost his dash at this stage. "That is my case," he concluded lamely.
The bench, after a few minutes' retirement, dismissed the charge against Samson.
"In connection with the other two charges we have decided to convict," said H. E. Moller.
Up jumped Hammerly.
"Make the fine £5/1/-, your worship, and I'll appeal."
"What are the previous completions?" asked the bench. "A whole lot, including Seacliff and contempt of Court," Hammerly butted in.
On the charge of disorderly conduct in High Street he was convicted and. ordered to pay costs 10/-. The bench also decided that the judgment of Magistrate Bundle in the North Road case would stand, the fine remaining at £2 and costs.
Hammerly (loudly): "That means that Charlie Samson is entitled to hit me and I cannot reply. All right, I'll take the law into my own hands. I'll tell you now!"
Court orderly: "Silence!" -NZ Truth, 2/6/1927.
HAMMERLY ONCE MORE
CHARGE OF INDECENT LANGUAGE PREFERRED
~ACCUSED WANTS JURY TRIAL
John Frederick Hammerly made another appearance before the Police Court this morning, the charge on this occasion being that he had used indecent language in High street on June 3 last. Hammerly vehemently denied using the language, and elected to be tried by a jury. Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., heard the case.
“Right here!” exclaimed Hammerly, when the charge was read.
The Magistrate: That is not the proper way to come into court. Just conduct yourself properly, Hammerly!
Hammerly: All right, your Worship.
“Do you desire to be tried by a jury?” asked the clerk.
Hammerly: Yes.
The Sub-inspector, in outlining the case, said that at 6.45 p.m. on June 3 a constable received a complaint to the effect that Hammerly was using indecent language outside Todd’s garage in High street. Accused continued to use the expressions for half an hour.
Leo. Gray, garage employee, callcd as a witness, asked first to be allowed to say a few words. When the constable came along for a statement, he said, he (witness) asked him to keep him out of the court, and not have his name mentioned. This had been promised. “I’ve heard that ever since Mr Hammerly has been an ex-detective the police can’t leave him alone.”
The Magistrate; “Wo are not concerned with what you have heard; if you have any evidence of that you may bring it forward.”
Witness: Well, I don’t want to be advertised as giving evidence against everyone.
The Magistrate: You are in the same position as every other citizen in a similar position, and there is no reason why an exception should be made in your case.
Witness, proceeding with his evidence, said that at 6 o’clock that evening Hammerly was outside the ‘Times’ Office fixing his car. Witness asked him if he wanted some petrol, and he replied: “If I want petrol I’ll ask for the — stuff.” Later Hammerly told him to “take his foot off the thing.” or something like that. Anyone passing who cared to listen could have heard the words.
Cross-examined, witness said he had not known Hammerly prior to this occurrence, and knew nothing to his detriment. Half a dozen people had told him that the police would not leave Hammerly alone. Witness had heard the word — used frequently by others.
Hammerly: “Have you ever used it yourself?”
Witness: Thousands of times, and I’ve beard the police use worse.
Were you offended at all at the language? — Not a bit; I’m used to it.
Witness added that he was induced to make the statement by the promise that his name would not be disclosed. Hammerly was quite sober, and he adjusted the carburettor of his own car, and cleared out the petrol system with the air pump.
William Herbert Gibson, a bricklayer, said he was in front of Todd’s Garage on the evening of June 3. He heard a man in a motor-car saying to another: “Keep your gate shut.” The words were repeated several times in a loud voice. Hammerly’s language could be heard by a number of people in the vicinity. Accused seemed to be the worse for liquor.
Hammerly (to witness): You say several people stopped?
Witness: They thought the language was awful.
Hammerly: Were the words offensive to your hearing?
Witness, after some hesitancy, said they were when his wife was with him.
Hammerly: Do you ever use that word ?
The Magistrate: Witness need not answer that question.
Hammerly: Well, he might be able to answer this one. You say I was the worse for liquor?
Witness; Yes. I think you were. You were staggering about.
Hammerly: Do you know what I was doing? I was adjusting the car. Do you think a man under the influence of liquor could do that?
The Magistrate: I suppose witness does not know the degree of skill required.
Hammerley: Do you, Your Worship?
The Magistrate: No, I don’t.
Hammerly: “I thought not.” Turning to witness he asked: And that word was offensive, was it?
Witness: Is it found in the Bible?
Hammerly: Certainly it is. The Magistrate: This is getting a bit irrelevant. Please confine yourself to the facts of the case.
Constable Round said he saw Hammerly standing near his car at about 6.45 p.m. on June 4. He called out in a loud voice, “Shut your b— gate.” Witness went away after taking a statement from a bystander, but returned with Constable Hastie. Asked concerning the language, accused had replied: “Some — thing blocked in the — thing and you two — can mind your own — business.” This was spoken in a loud voice. He had had drink.
Cross-examined: he smelt drink on accused. He did not check the latter at first because he wanted to hear the language repeated, and to get more evidence before taking action. Witness had been in the force a few weeks. Constable Hastie said he saw accused outside the garage trying to put water into his car, but he was too far from the pump, and he asked witness to give tho car a push. Witness refused to do this. Hammerly then used some indecent language, and continued to do so after witness had remonstrated with him. Accused was sober enough, though he had been drinking.
Hammerly: We eventually landed up at the police station? Who took you there?
Witness: You did.
Hammerly: It is generally the other way about. You were a witness against me in another case?
Witness: Yes.
The usual caution 'having been read, accused said he would call evidence. The first witness, he said, would be the sub-inspector.
Sub-inspector Fahey said he remembered Hammerly calling at witness’s office on the evening in question. Asked if accused was drunk, witness had replied “No.” But he thought be had had drink. Asked whether his condition was such as to justify being questioned on the point by the police, witness had replied “No,” but if he was in charge of a car he had better leave the car alone for an hour at least. He concluded that accused had had drink because of his manner and speech. He was excited, and spoke loudly, and interlarded his conversation with the word b—. Witness had known accused for about twenty-five years, and had never seen him incapable. Accused was, so far as witness knew, honest and truthful.
Thomas Farrell, a laborer in accused’s employ at Wingatui, said he had met Hammerly at the horse sale on June 3, and then went with him and a man named Pauley to High street. Witness denied that Hammerly had had any liquor. He did not hear him use any abusive language, either to the police or anyone else. Hammerly told him yesterday that he wanted him as a witness.
To the Sub-inspector: In his opinion, accused was quite sober. He denied he had been guilty of using obscene language in 1912.
Accused, sworn, said that, returning to his car, which he had left outside Todd’s garage, he found he could not start it. He found there was a block in the petrol pipe, and he adjusted this, and was ready to start, when the two constables arrived on the scene and said: “Are you quite sober.” Witness replied: “Undoubtedly; if you are in doubt we’ll go down and see the sub-inspector. They all proceeded there. Witness did not use any indecent abusive, obscene, or insulting language or behaviour to anybody.
Cross-examined: He would not care if 40,000 people swore that he used the offensive words, he would deny it.
Accused notified that he would call one other witness at the Supreme Court.
While being given the option of pleading guilty, accused interrupted and the Magistrate remarked: "Can you not control yourself properly?”
“Too right,” replied Hammerly, and he was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. The Magistrate added that it was a case for small bail. It was the type of case, he said, that was usually dealt with in the lower court, but the accused had elected (as he had a right to do, of course) to go to the Supreme Court. Bail was fixed at £20, with one surety of £20. -Evening Star, 15/6/1927.
FOUND GUILTY
Hammerly in Supreme Court
Jury's Rider (excerpt)
Several witnesses were called by Hammerly, who gave evidence himself. He said he was a butcher, an ex-mental patient, an ex-detective, and an ex-publican. On the evening of June 3 he left his car in front of Todd Bros.’ garage in Lower High street. While working at the car the crank handle flew off and hit him on the nose, causing a wound, which bled. He might have used a certain expression when the handle hit him, but he did not remember doing so. He never liked getting a crack on the nose, especially with a handle. He really did not think, however, he had used the language that fell on Mr Gibson’s delicate ears. Two constables came along, and one of them asked: “Are you sober?” Witness said "Undoubtedly,” and offered to go before the sub-inspector with the police officers. He was sober, and, although the sub-inspector advised him to leave his car alone for an hour, he took it away, and there were no accidents, no deaths, and no murder.
Cross-examined, Hammerly denied having used the indecent language complained of.
Addressing the jury for five minutes, Hammerly said that no evidence had been given against him, except that of “lying constables,” who were persecuting him. Wrongful treatment had been given him by the police simply because he was sticking up for his rights, which he would always do, because he had some Irish blood in him. He was dismissed from the Police Force for a wrong he did not commit. He had been hounded and chased, but the surroundings of an asylum or a gaol would not congeal the blood in his veins, and he was there again that day to speak for himself and to claim his rights, which, he was sure, the jury would allow him.
The Crown Prosecutor deprecated accused’s suggestion of persecution.
His Honor referred to the law on the matter, and reviewed the evidence. At 5.30 the jury retired and returned at 5.50 with a verdict of guilty. To its verdict the jury added the rider: — “The jury is of opinion that accused, on account of his highly nervous temperament, docs not realise the seriousness of what he docs.”
His Honor: The prisoner will be remanded for sentence. I shall consider what should be done with him.
Accused asked for bail.
His Honor: You will be notified later.
Accused: Your Honor, I live at Mosgiel. There are forty or fifty pigs to look after, sheep to feed, and a calf tied up. I am the only actor on the scene. My car is standing in the lane near the Police Court.
His Honor: I suppose there is no objection, Mr Adams, to his being released on bail.
The Crown Prosecutor said he saw no objection. It seemed almost necessary to allow bail, so that the animals might be attended to.
His Honor said he would pass sentence on Friday morning.
Accused: Pardon me, if your Honor will, but Friday is a very busy day with me. After a pause: I suppose, if it is to be gaol, it does not matter whether it is Friday or Saturday.
His Honor said he would pass sentence on Monday morning, at 10 o’clock.
Accused was released on bail. -Evening Star, 3/8/1927.
Hammersley was sentenced to a year's probation on condition he take out a prohibition order on himself.
DEFENDANT REMOVED
UNUSUAL SIGHT IN COURT.
EX-DETECTIVE'S BEHAVIOUR.
(Per Press Association.) DUXEDIN, July. 31. During the hearing of a case in the Magistrate's Court this morning, in which John Frederick Hammerly, an ex-detective, was the defendant, the unusual sight of the defendant in a civil case being taken into custody was afforded those in the Court-room.
Whilst counsel for the plaintiff (Mr B. S. Irwin) was examining witness, Hammerly persisted in interrupting loudly and took little heed of the Magistrate (Mr J. R. Bartholomew) when he warned him that such rudeness would not be tolerated. So persistent was Hammerly in his breach of Court etiquette that the Magistrate s patience became exhausted and Hammerly was ordered to be removed in custody. After a short interval he was brought back before the Magistrate, and he stood against the railing in a slovenly manner.
The Magistrate: Stand in the proper manner and do not aggravate your position, Hammerly. Your behaviour has been rude and most offensive.
Hammerly: Well, I will not have counsel telling untruths.
The Magistrate: Do not interrupt me when I am addressing you. I regret that I have had to take this step, but you have interrupted repeatedly. I shall now order you to be released from custody to enable the case to proceed: You, have been wilfully objectionable and offensive and this conduct must cease. If you persist the powers of the Court must be asserted.
After a short hearing the case was further adjourned. -Ashburton Guardian, 1/8/1930.
Police Court
FINED MEDICAL EXPENSES.
John Frederick Hammerly appeared on remand in answer to a charge of disorderly conduct. He stated that he would plead guilty to obviate trouble.
In commenting on the gaol surgeon’s report, His Worship said it was quite clear from the report that Hammerly had been labouring under an unjustifiable sense of persecution. He had been a nuisance to the court, to the police, and to the public, and, if he continued on in the same way, there could be no question but that he would end his days under the charge of a State mental hospital. As the defendant had been in custody in the present case he did not propose the imposition of a penalty.
When the question of medical expenses was being discussed Hammerly stated that he would pay for his own doctor, but he did not see why he should pay for the gaol surgeon.
His Worship thereupon fined him the amount of his medical expenses (£1 1s).
The defendant was expressing gratitude to the police force when the Magistrate interrupted him by stating that he could only express his gratitude to the police by keeping out of their hands. -Evening Star, 24/10/1930.
PRIVATE PROSECUTION
HAMMERLY VERSUS MAGISTRATE
ALL INFORMATIONS DISMISSED
The Police Court was occupied this morning with the hearing of four informations laid by John Frederick Hammerly, alleging breaches of the motor regulations against Henry Wilfred Bundle, stipendiary magistrate at Dunedin, Messrs J. J. Marlow, J. O. Willis, and T. D. B. Paterson, J.P.s, being on the bench.
Hammerly, who conducted his own case, indulged in considerable shouting across the court, and frequently submitted that he bad been impeded in his efforts to obtain witnesses. After his witnesses had been heard, and counsel for the defendant had addressed the court, the Bench dismissed all the informations.
The informations against the defendant were that he turned a vehicle, a private motor car, which he was driving at the time, for the purpose of altering its direction of travel except at the intersection of a street; that he turned a motor car to the right in Princes street without having given the proper or a conspicuous signal to traffic approaching from the rear of his intention to do so; that he drove a private motor car in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances, might have been dangerous to the public; that he turned such car to the right or off side of Princes street before going round the intersection of the street with Dowling street.
On behalf of the defendant, who did not appear, Mr J. B. Callan entered a plea of not guilty.
Before proceedings commenced, the informant asked whether the court was aware that another information had been laid this morning, and that the clerk had informed him that it could not be taken.
The Bench intimated that there were four informations before the court, and those were all that would be taken.
The informant outlined his case, and stated that at 2.30 p.m. on Saturday, December 30, the defendant was driving a three-seater car along Princes street towards the Stock Exchange. He was in the view of informant, who was also accompanied by two witnesses. While standing there he saw Mr Bundle stop just opposite Craig and Co.’s mercer shop. He then started his car in slow motion, and turned to the right, committing the four breaches contained in the information. It was a hot day, and the tar was soft, the car leaving marks which were there on Sunday morning. He took the measurements, and subsequently got a tape measure, and in a constable’s presence took the measurements.
Evidence on these lines was given by the informant, who said that he drew the attention of Daniel O’Brien and Roderick Bernie, the men who were with him at the time, to the fact that it was Mr Bundle who had violated the traffic regulations. The witness said the clerk of the court (Mr Reynolds) tried to influence him not to lay the informations, and eventually he had communicated with Mr Ansell, M.P., complaining of the “hold-up.”
The Bench: If you were laying a charge against the department this would be in order, but you are laying a charge against a particular person,
Mr Callan said he thought he knew what was running in Mr Hammerly’s mind. Supposing he succeeded in getting Mr Bundle convicted he wished to forearm himself in the matter of expenses, and he could then discuss these matters, but he was a long way from getting Mr Bundle convicted.
The Witness said that a photograph of the intersection had been taken. The defendant turned 57ft 6in to the north side of the intersection instead of going round it.
Mr Callan asked witness if by intersection he meant a point.
Witness: Not necessarily.
Mr Callan asked the witness if it was from a point half the width across Princes street and half the width across Dowling street that he took his measurements.
Witness: Yes.
Mr Callan: What is at the other end? — The wheel marks of defendant’s car.
“How did you know they were the wheel marks of Mr Bundle’s car?” asked Mr Callan.
Witness: I saw them put there.
In reply to a further question witness said he taped the distance in the evening of the date in question. Witness told counsel that he would absolutely say that he could detect the wheel marks of Mr Bundle’s car five hours after the happening.
‘‘Did you make a mark?" asked counsel, to which witness replied: “I did, in the soft tar.”
Witness said he first used a tape about 7 o’clock on the night in question.
Mr Callan: Who assisted you? — Nobody.
And you measured from the centre mark to your own heel mark? — And Mr Bundle’s car mark.
Maurice Burton Taylor, a photographer, gave evidence as to having taken a photograph of the locality subsequent to the date in question.
Daniel O’Brien, labourer, said that he and Roderick Bernie were standing at the corner when Hammerly came along. It was a hot day and the car left a mark on the asphalt.
When Mr Callan was conducting his cross-examination of the witness Hammerly interjected several times.
Mr Callan (to the bench): I will not have Mr Hammerly saying things to the witness while I am cross-examining. I suggest that he sit down.
Hammerlv (who had been standing dose to Mr Callan all the time): It’s all right, Callan, it’s all right. I won’t hit you.
Mr Callan: I am less afraid of that than of your speaking to the witness.
Hammerly then produced a plan of the vicinity with the course allegedly taken by Mr Bundle marked on it.
Mr Callan immediately protested against this, and Hammerly agreed to make a fresh plan without a car track on it.
Roderick Bernie also gave evidence.
Hammerly announced that he proposed to call a constable whose name he did not know.
The bench pointed out that the constable could not be called unless his name were known.
Hammerly: The police refused to give me his name. You’ve no idea how the Westinghouse brakes have been put on me. It’s paralysing — it’s astounding.
The bench administered a sharp rebuke to Hammerly for failing to address Mr Callan and court officials in the proper manner.
Hammerly then called the names of several witnesses, who did not appear. He finished by declaring that he intended to call Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.
After Mr Bartholomew had been summoned and sworn he addressed the bench as follows: — "Before I am asked questions I suggest to your Worships that it is an abuse of the processes of the court that I should be brought here. I know absolutely nothing of the case, and was several hundreds of miles away at the time.
The bench concurred.
Mr Bartholomew: I take it that I may retire.
Hammerly: And glad to be out of it, too.
The informant again asked for an adjournment to enable him to call the constable and his other witness, Neave.
Mr Callan said he opposed any adjournment.
The informant: So would I if I were sitting in your chair.
Mr Callan: I am addressing the bench, or propose to.
Hammerly: So am I. I take second seat to you, Callan!
Mr Callan: “I seriously say that this is becoming farcical, and there is no possible reason why we shouldn’t get finished with the case.” He suggested that Mr Hammerly should call his next witness or tell them when ho was going to close the case.
The informant: I still must ask for an adjournment.
Mr Marlow said that the bench had decided they would not adjourn.
The informant continued to press for the appearance of the two witnesses already mentioned, and shouted remarks as to their whereabouts across the court to various officials in the court.
Mr Callan stated that there was no evidence to support the first charge, and he submitted that it must be dismissed. Not a tittle of suggestion that anyone was in any danger had arisen from the evidence. The informant had failed to justify the indignity he had submitted defendant to, and counsel submitted that the informations should be dismissed on their own inherent weakness.
The informant addressed the court and concluded by saying; “Don’t be gulled by Callan and don’t be gulled by J. F. Hammerly — I appeal to God for justice, and if 1 don’t get it in this court I will go to another one.”
Mr Marlow said that the Bench had gone into the matter carefully, and they upheld the contention of defendant’s counsel that there was no evidence of an offence in regard to any of the four clauses. All four informations would be dismissed.
“Yes, I thank you, and I’ll appeal to the Supreme Court,” was the informant’s parting shot. -Evening Star, 8/2/1934.
Hammersley's occasional court appearances on the more prosaic offence of disorderly behaviour, due to his habit of using "obscene language" continued through the 1930s. In further court appearances, sometimes as complainant, he is referred to as "a retired farmer."
His last recorded appearance was in 1950. When John Frederick Hammerly died and was laid to rest beside his wife, his address was recorded as being 47 Brown St, in Dunedin city. His occupation is recorded as "detective."
No comments:
Post a Comment