POLICE COURT.—Saturday.

Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 532, 23 September 1871, Page 2

POLICE COURT.—Saturday.

[Before Thomas Beckham, Ksq., R.M.] Drunkenness. — Annie Hamilton, "Jam Fruser, and George Wardell, were punished in the usual manner for this offence. Drunk and Disorderly.— Annin Runboli was charged on the sheet with this offence. — Sergeant major Pardie said she was sull'erin from a violent attack of delirium tremens l'ho Magistrate said that medical attendance should be provided us soon as possible.—Then certainly should bo a doctor to look after th? po'ice cases. Vagrancy".—Kate McManus was charged under the Vagrant Act, with behaving in an indecent manner in a public place.—Sergeantmajor Pardie said that th« prisoner had only just come out of gaol for a similar offence.— The Court remarked that there mnst be some great attraction in Mount Eden.—She had just suffered two months' imprisonment, and here she was wanting to go back again, and yet it almost seemed idle to him to send such people back. —The true punishment for such a woman would be to have her head shaved and be kept or. bread and water for a fortnight. Tho sentence of the Court was three months' imprisonment. Breach of Destitute Persons Relief Ordinance.—Willia.u Dart was charged by Annie Hart with a breach of the above Ordinance by desert ing his wife and three children.—r'.l'he case was adjourned from tho previous day to see. if a settlement could not bo effected. —The defendant now pleaded guilty, and was fined one shilling, and ordered to pay ten shillings a week towards his wife's support.

THE ASSAULT CASE

Assault.—Neville Septimus Walker was charged by Henry Brett with unlawfully assaulting him by striking him ou the face with his clenched fist.--Mr. Hesketh appeared for the prosecutor, and Mr; Roes for tho defendant. —Mr. Rees said that his client pleaded guilty, but wished that the case should go on in order that tho Court might know whut really had taken place, and to show what provocation his client had received. After some discussion, the plea of not guilty win recorded in order that tho merits of the case might be gone into. Mr. Hesketh, in opening the case, recorded tho facts as narrated in the evidence below. At the c oso of his remarks, he said tbe prosecution was brought for the ends of public justice, and not as a private matter by Mr. Brett. No act could be a gratification for such an assault under any circumstances. If outrages of this nature were allowed to go unpunished and held up lo tho public, they would become odious in the sight of the public. Ho asked His Worship to puriish the offender in such a way as would deter, people from indulging in such acts in future. A judge was protected, a councillor"' was protected, a newspaper was protected, at least, so far as personal violence was concerned. He then called the following witnesses : — Henry Brett deposed, I am connected with the Evening Star, i 1 did riot know Mr.-Walker personally, before Wednesday last, when I spoke to hiui between five arid-six o'clock-m tlie evening. He came to our office at "that time, and asked me- if there was anything in that evening's issue in reference to him. I was engaged in counting out papers fdr the runners. I replied " I don't think your name is mentioned in the paper Mr.' Walker." I was behind the counter. Before I could get the sentence out, he leaned over the counter and struck me on tlie chin, saying, " take that you ." .1 then.Stood away irom the counter, and told the defendant to leave the otßce. He tried to get round to the inside of the counter. He pushed through the boys, and I believe struck one of them on the head. When he got behind the counter he said, now I have got you, I will give you a damned good hiding. He then made'uiibtlier blow towards me, and I struck him in the face, first with the left, and then with the. right. Thai; sent him about half way out of the office. He theu returned about three feet .'arid I struck him on tho mouth, which sent him outside. I did not follow him. I did not intend to retaliate alter the first blow. I told him to go out, arid then when he squared up to me, I struck him in. my own defence. I had not given him the slightest provocation. By Mr. Rees : I am part proprietor of the Evening Star. The papers produced look very much like that journal. (Laughter).' The dates are from the 19th to the 22ud of September (produced by Mr. Rees). I remember Mr. Joseph Bennett and Mr. Neville Walker coming into the ollice in the morning. lii-thu Tuesday paper there is a letter li-onr Dick, about the knocker-breaking, &o. Mr. Noviilo's name and Mr. Bennett's name'were in thai .letter. The name of Bennett was not iutended for Joseph Bennett. The dedndant said, "my name is Walker" (laughter;, is the Walker now mentioned meant for me ? I said I did not know. (Article read). Idp know who most of the names referred to. I did not know before the assault . took place who Neville or the Seven Devils was meant for. Mr. Walker himself said it was meant for him. I don't know now that it was intended to

apply to him, except from what he says. When Bennett and Walker came in to see Mr.

teed, I scarcely recollect what they said. Dhcj did ask for an apology. Mr. Reed said, as soon as he found out "the incorrectness of the statement an apology should appear. I

•ould not say whether such an apology was endered. Tlie last copy is generally sent upstairs by two o'clock. It was late when Mr. Walker went to the office. (Mr. Rees here wished to read the article on Dice's letter which appeared in Wednesday's issue. Mr. Hesketh objected to the letter being read, as it had nothing to do with the case. After some discussion the Court allowed the letter to be read). After hearing those articles I still say I gavo no provocation. I did not write the article in question. I have nothing to do with what is written. I can not say whether Mr. Walker had anything to do with wrenching off those knockers. I believe ho had not. An apology would have been offered but for the assault on me. I have no particular wish to see Mr. Neville in prison, but I think he might be punished. (Mr. Rees tendered the Tuesday's and Wednesday's papers in evidence). —I do not know who gave the information which was contained in " Dick's letter." Mr. Walker asked me why there was no apology in the paper. I do not see any cause why he should have assaulted me: nobody would know it was intended for him if he bad not told them himself. I did not know his name was Walker until Wednesday morning. Walker did not ask me if Mr. Reed was in. I laid an information because I considered it a very proper course. fThe Court remarked that a complaint could not be made in assault cases, it must be by information.] —Re-ex-amined by Mr. Hesketh : So far as I know, the articles in question do not refer to Mr. Neville Walker.. I told him that if it referred to him we would render him an apology.— George Seven, a clerk in the Thames G.M. Co.'b Office, gave corroborative evidence with regard to the assault upon Mr. Brett.—Mr. "Hesketh said there was another witness.—Mr. Rees said the assault was not denied.—This was the case for the prosecution.—Mr. Rees then addressed the Bench for the defence, and said that there were only one or two of tlie parties mentioned who had amused themselves in wrenching olf knockers — (The Court here interrupted Mr. Rees, aud -aid if it. was known that this thing ha I icourred the police hud been most supine in int. taking proceedings against the individual. L'hey were offttners against, the public, and the iolice ha 1 acted in a most unjustifiable manier), —Mr. Kees said he should be sorry to leeitse the persons Dunsev and Crippen ; peruips he ought not to have said what he had. -I he Court said that, of course, it, knew nothing on the subject, but, if it were a fact, lint these otfences had been comini'ted, the ijiTenders ought to have been in the hands of the police, and punished. -Mr Kees said the matter had been se'tled.— Ihe Court thought such a matter had no right to be settled.— Mr. Rees then continued his remarks in defence, lie then called the following evidence : -Joseph Bennett deposed : I remember reading tho letter of " Dick's," in the Evening Star of Tuesday. Tho next day I went with Mr. Walker to the office. Messrs.

■'eed and Brett were there. Air. Walker told him whit he had come about, and Mr. Reed said, "if he did not walk out, he would have him put out by a policeman." Mr. Brett told me that I was not the Mr. Bennett referred to. Mr. Reed lost his temper, and almost challenged me to light. A promise of an apology was made, to bo inserted in the paper. Wo then left the office—By Mr. Kees: I think that "Neville, the Seven Devils," is intended for Mr. Walker.—(\?r. Hesketh: Mr. Walker's name is not mentioned in the loiter.) I have been hero some months. When I went into tho room to Mr. Reed we did not bounce. Wc quietly asked him for an explanation. Somo exception was taken by Mr. Brett to our manner. I said if they thought we were dictatorial we would go buck to tho original proposition. I was informed at once 1 was not the Mr. Bennett intended. lam not known as " Ballarat Bennett. "—Mr. Hesketh: Mr. Neville Walker's name refers to tho cock-fight-ing.—Q. Wai not Mr. Walker it the cocklight ? A. I do not know. —Tho Court : Wo are not trying a cock lighting case. — Witness : When wo left it was understood that an apology should be iuserted in that evening's paper.—Magregor Hay : I am a solicitor practising in Auckland. I saw Mr. Walker on Wednesday afternoon. He said he wanted to see the paper—ho expected an apology in it. Tho defendant was m-ant by Neville, I have not the slightest doubt. I know of none elso bearing the same Christian name.—By Mr. Hesketh : I should say that " Neville, or tho Seven Devils," is Mr. Walker, in consequence of his mimo being givon in connection with several others with whom I know he is acquainted. After reading tho paper, he gave it to me back without a word, and then walked into the office.—This was tho whole case. —In giving judgment, Mr. Beckham said: that, of course, iv listening to and deciding upon this case it was necessary to disabuse the mind of all matters imported into it, and judge of the assault only. That an assault had beiii committed was beyond a doubt, and if no provocation had been offered it was a very serious one. If such things were permitted no in'an would be safe, for such a system as that of people going into other persons' houses and assaulting them unprepared, would establish a reign of torror. The question that ho had to do.il with in this instance was whether or no there had been any provocation. Probably there had, but would that, iv any shape or way, justify what Mr. Walker had done? And, before going any further, it was desirable to lot such men know that justice would not bo satisfied with tho payment, of a mere fine of £10 from a rich uiiin for tho gratification of giving another a thrashing. The punishment might be two months iv the Stockade, aud that was the proper punishment for men acting in such a way, no matter whether his name was White or Brown, the law far the rich and the poor was alike ; and a rich man should no more get off after the committal of Buch an offence by the payment of a fine than a poor man. lie must say that ho was greatly astonished that men in the position of the defendant could risk for one moment a visit to Mount Eden —for any man committing an unprovoked assault was on the high road that led to that prison ; and once there, there would be no distinction shown him. Ho would have to herd and break stones with the worst o( felons. These assaults could not bo committed with impunity. There was no doubt that in tho case there was sufficient to cause irritation, but that would not justify the commission of such an oHence. The law told a man that if another entered his premises, he wes only to use just sulfioiout force to expel him. Yet, in this case, a mau's premises had been entered, and an assault suddenly committed. In the present instance, although there was sonic provocation there was nothing whatever to justify the assault, unci he hoped this would bo distinctly understood. Had it uot been for the provocation in the present case, which had led to the defendant's irritation, ho would have had no hesitation in sending tho defendant to Mount; .Eden j but for that irritation ho must piy a duo of £10, aud find two securities in £50 each, and himself in £100, to keep the peace for the next

| six months. He did hope that there would be an end of this matter. If such a caso were brought before him again, unless an immense amount of provocation were Bhown, there would be nothing but Mount Eden before the offender. The proceedings then terminated.