robbing Roosters restaurant last winter testified in Supreme Court yesterday that Roger Eugene Lightbourne was not his partner in crime.

Kimani Llewellyn Fubler, who claims Police pressured and harassed him into signing a statement implicating Lightbourne, came close to being cited for contempt of court when he refused to provide the name of the man he alleges did rob Roosters.

Lightbourne is accused of storming into the Court Street chicken outlet on January 28 and stealing its cash register and the approximately $700 that was in it. While he was arrested a short distance from the restaurant, he claims he could not have robbed the restaurant because he was selling cocaine at the time.

Yesterday, Fubler lent credence to that claim by testifying he had carried out the robbery with someone else.

When Crown Counsel Mr. Peter DeJulio asked him who the person was, however, Fubler declined to answer.

"What is his name?'' the prosecutor persisted.

"I don't wish to say,'' Fubler answered.

"I wish to know. Are you refusing to answer the question?'' Mr. DeJulio asked.

"Yes,'' the witness responded.

"Your Honour,'' Mr. DeJulio said finally, "I'm going to ask this court to cite this witness for contempt.'' The prosecutor's threat prompted Fubler to reconsider his position.

"I didn't say I knew his name,'' he told Puisne Judge the Hon. Mr. Justice Meerabux. "I know his nickname.'' "Oh, you know his nickname,'' the judge said. "What is it?'' "Smalls,'' Fubler replied.

According to Fubler, Smalls is "22, a little taller than Mr. Lightbourne, dark-skinned. You can start by looking for him on Court Street.'' When Mr. DeJulio asked why Fubler had signed a statement that named Lightbourne as his accomplice, he said that he was "told'' by the Police to do so.

"He (Det. Con. Calvin Smith) told me that it was Roger, to say that it was this guy Roger. I constantly told the officer that I don't know any Roger.

Before I had given this statement, I was in Police custody from Friday morning until Tuesday.

"I don't know if the court or the jury are aware of the harassment that takes place at Police stations, but to cut a long story short I was fooled, harassed and pressured to make up this story. When I say I was harassed, I specifically mean Police coming in and out of my cell, telling me I had better tell the truth and say that it was Roger.'' Fubler also alleged that he was taken to Prospect and Somerset for further harassment and that a Police Officer spat in his box of Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Speaking of his return to Hamilton Police Station, he added: "That's when I agreed to make up this story with Mr. Smith.'' Earlier in the trial, Mr. DeJulio suggested that Fubler had been forced by threats in prison to exonerate Lightbourne, but yesterday Fubler said that was not the case.

When Mr. DeJulio suggested he was lying, Fubler didn't respond.

Almost as soon as the contempt charge was averted, however, the prosecutor asked that defence attorney Mr. Archie Warner be dismissed from the case because of his alleged reluctance to treat Fubler as an independent witness.

Mr. Warner, who also represented Fubler during his trial, had objected on the ground of solicitor-client privilege when Mr. DeJulio tried to determine when the witness had last spoken to Mr. Warner.

Mr. Meerabux settled the matter by telling Mr. DeJulio he could complain to the Bar Association if he felt Mr. Warner had acted improperly. Fubler testified that he hadn't spoken to Mr. Warner since his sentencing anyway.

Fubler was the last witness to be called in the trial. Closing arguments by both sides are to be heard today.