SUMMONS OR WARRANT?

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 984, 26 November 1910, Page 13

SUMMONS OR WARRANT?

AUCKLAND POLICE EXONEKATEDi : ']

The Attorney-General was asked, by th« J Hon. T. Thompson, in the- Legislative . I Council yesterday, whether his attention j had been drawn, to tho remarks of Sir. 'j Justice • Edwards as", published..■ :- IV | press, with reference ta the c-t. '■! the Auckland police in- arresting a man, •'. | on warrant, when a summons would have' « been sufficient, and whether he will issue j such instructions [\s will prevent sucii -j q. tiling occurring again, 'j The Attorney-General raid- Ms atten- j tion. had been directed, to the remarks, ' j and, r.s Minister for Justice, he had i carefully looked info, the matter.' It ap- j pearod that an information, had been laid ; against one Grsjr by-the managing 'di« > rector of the company /ihat' . einployM -', him. A warrant of arrest was there- j upon issued by - Sir. ■' Kettle, S.M., who, 1 handed.the warrant to the police for 1 execution. It- was duly executed by the j police in the usual way? The police had 1 bseii unjustly blamed for their- share in ) the matter. The warrant having beon I handed to them for .execution they could" ! not refu;-a to execute it.; .Mr.' Kettl-5, ] 5.51., had made a statement that the ! ,policc were not in any way to blame for "the issue of the warrant.... He (Dr. Pindlay) was glad to have the opportu- .? nity of making' these remarks,. and of .] clearing the Auckland . police from the 1 blamo which, he must, sav, had'most un- i fairly been cast upon them. ■'■■ ■ j '■The Hon. T. Thompson scid he felt. ; ' siiro that the Juflge in. question, could -j not have l.ven .aware of the facts or he :,} would -not hnvo made the lemarks hQ was ! reported to have made. "> .!