THE POLICE SCANDAL.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 524, 3 June 1909, Page 6

THE POLICE SCANDAL.

"NOT ONE REDEEMING FEATURE." TWO CONSTABLES CONVICTED. THREE DISMISSED THE FORCE. 'A decision was given by Mr. W. G. Rid j • doll; S.M., yesterday-morning iu tho cases of two police constables, Wm. Josopli Gardiner i ■" and John Edward Watson, charged with unlawfully assaulting a man and; his wife (Mr. and Mrs. Rolfe) in Customhouse Quay "on tho night of May 10. As was tho case throughout the" hearing of tho charges the Court was . .orowdod." After reviewing , the duties of the, police in respect to citizens, and tho special: •. training that fitted officers of the law for tho' discharge 'of suqh duties, his Worship proceeded to deal with tho case bofore tho CourtHotels and Horseplay: Both Wrong. In-,this particular , case, his Worship said ' the i officers charged — Gardiner, Watson, - find '; ;Clay—had -; visited a • number of. hotels. - That, the -Court took, it, was a : breaoh . of tho. regulations, having .regard to ■ tho number of. hotels visited. Tho trio afterwards indulged in a certain amount of horse-play in the street, and that horseplay attracted the- attention of Mrs. v - and Mr. Rolfo and two sailors off tho steamer - " Kaipara. -These'people, described the horse- : v play.as one man being assaulted by two men. It appeared, to the Court from tho d&scrip-. ■lion of what was going on that although, defendants said the struggle was* perfectly v friendlyj. yot it was sufficient to call for .the .-/.interference; of Mr. Rolfo and his wife. If ' the -men concerned in the struggle had been. ordinary 'citizens, and had carried on in tho way thoy had done, their conduct would have called for the interference of any '-police''officer who might have been, in the : , vicinity. - For that reason. Mr. j Rolfo was justifiod in interfering. Up to this point tho • ; evidence of tho Rolfos and that of tho sailors' was at one. Both Constables Assaulted Rolfo. As to tho assault on-Rolfo, thero was some - conflict of ovidenco as to what actually, happened; before'..the assault commenced, but it :■ • ■ seemed to. the'Court)!that thel assault was oom- ' monced by the defendants, and not by Rolfe. Although tho defendants , said Rolf© put his '■■■ hands; up, ,the Court mnst, take the whole of tho circumstances into -consideration, ineluding tho evidcnco of the telegraph boy— ah uninterested spectator, *'who gave "his ovidonoe confidently,: and said that Rolfe and his wifowero'tTirning to walk away.whenthe ' ;''-: assault' took: placo. Tho' twti defendants placed themselves in'a fighting attitude, and • the .words wore then spoken: "What .right had they to interfere ?" . : It was ridiculous for the two constables, fnllgrown, powerful men, to suggest that a man of' Rolfe's. weight,; and,his wife, did attack, them. Tho ovidenco proved conclusively that the: constables;or. one .of . them, attacked Rolfe, and tho particular constable was Watson. The- evidence r also .showed- that, although Rolfo may -have made a mistake ■in the person, Watson, admitted that, he fought with Rolfe, and Gardiner stated tho ;V; same thing.',. Watson received certain marks 'during the affair, and he admitted that the wholo of his timo was -taken up by Rolfo from tho start to tho end of. the engagement. ' There was . also .the. evidence of, the . two V sailors .that ithey saw- two blows struck, and I : the evidence of ,a . man , who rode. ,up on "his bioyclo. Both defendants must bo convicted .of assaulting Mr. Rolfo.: '• .

Assailant of Mrs. Rolfe: Constable Gardiner. Coining to -the, assault on Mrs. .Rolfe, tho, evidence was rather confusing. A theory -:was put - forward by the '.'defence that Mrs. ■ . Rolfo caught hold of hor husband's arm to keep.him back, and, in dragging it away, she '.'.Mi was. struck. -The .Court was unable to accept ,v: this theory,.' although the, evidence iras supported by two witnesses. As to 'Upton's v;. evidence,-it.;was not.given as clearly as that " 'of". the': witnesses ' for the . prosecution, .and his Worship was not- satisfied -;that the man. ■ saw:iheswndle' of■ the, procefedings/ although' \ . .he ...in'a^fi' : h'ive .:Se&-parts >of it. . The'jother:: : witness, Ham, on his. own' admission, ' knew. ; 'yery little about. the.,whole. : business., . Mrs., :* ilolfo was not able .to identify' the person who actually assaulted her, but her husband •■;N said;that Watson did-' : it:,':::He' probably made » mistake. Tlicy . had ■; the . evidence, of ; ono fatness ..who saw a' mari; deliberatelystrike. .---. Jho woman, and saw her fall to the ground,and tho man who''struck, tho blow then went; ■ over, , and assisted Watson, who .was engaged, ' with Mr! Rolfe. There' were only four perI'sons engaged—Rolfe,: his wife, Watson, and Gardiner. Rolfo was engagod the whole time , with Watson: The woman :was knocked down V and .there was only one ''man who could bo , held' accountable.' Tho only inference ' the Court . could draw was that defendant ■; Gardiner was the person who assaulted Mrs. Rolfo. Both defendants must be convicted : • of assaulting Mr.' -Rolfe ; and . defendant ' :i: Gardiner must also" be convicted'of assaulting Mrs. Rolfo. , • : i-.

The Constable Who Lent No Aid. Continuing, .his 'Worship said that' it'..was ; ■ V an' unpleasant matter for: the Court to have to imposo sentences on members of the police force. : Tho relations between the Court and constables was. such. that the Court had. a certain confidence; in; tho polioe, 'and . it : was, . : not to be expected ...that constables ; would' abuse, that confidence'.!'lf-they, did abuse it' they must suffer tho. consequences. 'It was tho duty of tho Court to remark on tho con- ■■ duct of Constable Clay in the above matter. Every ono of the three constables.: appeared i to - have - forgotten: that .they were members 1 of tho police forco-r-in fact, they appeared to forget that they were'men; Clay, on his own admission, returned after, the affair, was' over, ' . and, although a 'constable, ho rendered no . assistance to the persons assaulted; It was ;.. tho duty of the police to • make inquiries and to attend to. tho persons assaulted,; but no ■ ■ ,'i action was'. taken',' and Clay ' had thus failed • ii' his., duty. : The other, two constables also i acted in a callous manner. ■v His Worship Passes Sentence. j Thero was absolutely no excuse for treating tho woman in tho way in which she had been treated. -The: Court had considered tho s :rmatter carefully - fro'ni every side, and, if ' there had been a chanco of finding one redeeming feature, it; would have been brought forward. ' However,' tho Court could find not. ono redeeming fc-aturo. Tho maximum Dfnalty in. cases, of this kind was a fino of £10 or.. imprisonment ' for two - months. Defendant Watson'would bo convicted and. . fiiiecl £10 on • tlie_ cliargo of .assaulting . Mr;. Rolfe, and Gardiner would bo convicted and . : fined £5. Watson must be dismissed from the ;;. charge of assaulting Mrs. Rolfe.., So far as. ■ii Gardiner.';was concerned, the woman, a£ she appeared in Court, was'a'.person' who -could : :. offer no resistance whatever- to' an attack of a man in possession of his full health and' :/,:Y strength, and..tho/assault on. her must have a :sevore_ one. Although throe'weeks . - had elapsed since - the .'assault, .the woman still bore traces of it. The _penalty must ba ,- . commensurate with • the : offence. :On tho - ; y , c hargo_ of .assaulting Mrs. Rolfe,. Gardiner : would bo convicted; and sentenced to twonty- , . : one days' ' imprisonment.-: : Tho : ' defendants would cach have''to' pay costs, £3 95.. half Watson's fino to be paid to Mr. Rolfe. This .-.;. order, his .Worship,"' wotild -not''prejudice ln way any civil'right Rolfo'might have . :against the defendants.' '.- Appeal on a Point of Law. • Mr. Blair -asked for leave to appeal In' -Gardiner's caso. : : 'Counsel said.ho could not . : ', appeal-uridor. Section- 302 of the Justices of tho' Peace: Act, because "the penalty did not Bxcecd. oiie' month's: imprisonment. Under ■. .' , 290, however,. lie was' enti tied to - appeal on a point of law. ' The question of l?w ho to go' on was "that the facts ... an which defendant ■ hatl been convicted were ' not sufficient. 'Security for appeal Was fixed in - tho sum of £10,. the appaal to be lodged Tnthin thrco days. Bail was allowed in the . sunj of £50 and two sureties of £25 each. Clay, Cardlner, and Watson Dismissed, v tho Force, ; ■ ; Tho throo constables in the as- :: - . Biult receivetl. notice, last ,'night of -, their :' dismissal from tho force.. Constables Gardiner and \Vatson had been under .suspension sinco : ■' tho night'of May'lO, ponding' the' result of tho Court proceedings. ', . ,