LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1366, 17 February 1912, Page 9

LAW REPORTS.

WRONGFUL ARREST. POLICE SERGEANT'S ERROR.HIS CASE FAILS. "MORE WILL BE HEARD OF IT." A caso of which it was said in court "more will be hoard" same before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., in the magistrate's Court yesterday. Alexander Rose was charged with being disorderly vrhilo under tho influence of liquor. He pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr. J. J. M'Grath. Evidence was given in support of the information by Sergeant Stewart and Constables Wallace and Gordon. Sergeant Stewart stated that, in consequence of considerable noise in tho Foresters' Arms Hotel, he went inside and admonished Rose. Rose thereupon put ■up his hands in a rather threatening way, and ho (witness) thereupon at once arrested him. For a distance of about 200 yards witness and Constable Wallace had gTeat difficulty in getting Rose to go with them; it took them all their time to manage him.

Mr. M'Grath: I want you to say honestly whether or not ho w really under the influence of liquor

Sergeant Stewart: He was not fit to bo arrested on a charge of drunkenness.

Are you aware that, fortunately or unfortunately, he was examined by a doctor very shortly after his arrest?

Sergeant Stowart: I am aware of it. Mr. M'Grath: Did that influence you in altering your opinion? Sergeant Stowart: The charge was entered up in the Mr. M'Grath: Never mind about that. Did it influence you in altering your opinion? Sergeant Stowart: It was two days afterwards when I heard that tho doctor had seen him. I didn't alter my. opinion.

Mr. M'GTath: You didn't alter your opinion! Why, you arrested tho man on a charge oi' being disorderly while drunk, and now you say lie was uot drunk. Aren't tho® two contradictory opinions of his condition? Sergeant Stewart: I have not altered my opinion at all. Mr. M'Grath: Oh; tou have been of tho same opinion all the time. ■ Sergeant Stewart: Yes. Mr. M'Grath: And you say that ho was not fit to arrest on a charge of drunkenness ?

Sergeant Stewart: Thafs so. Mr. M'Grath: Then, why did yon charge him with being disorderly while drunk?

Sergeant Stewart: Because he was disorderly. Mr. M'Grath: But you have sworn that lie was not drunk. Sergeant Stewart: But ho was disorder-

Iy. Mr. M'Grath: Explain why you charge him with being drunk when you say lift was not drunk.

Sergeant Stewart: That is the charge. Mr. M'Grath: A chargc- ol being disorderly while drunk, to which charge you swear that he was not drunk!

Sergeant Stewart made 110 reply. Mr. M'Grath: 1 have got nine witnesses who will sav that he was not drunk. Sergeant Stewart: I quite believe that. Mr. M'Grath: You quite believe it? Sergeant Stewart: Yes, ho was always in the bar; he was a "good fellow"—always "shouting." Mr. M'Grath: Will you please bo good enough to keep your "opinion" to yourself? .

Sergeant Stewart: Yes,,sir. Mr. M'Grath i Are you prepared to believe that nine people are prepared to come here and commit perjury? - Is 'that

it? Sergeant Stewart: I don't say that. Constable Wallace stated in evidence that he did not think that Rose was dfiink when arrested, but was of the opinion that ho "had liad a good supply." He admitted that Eose went quietly with them all the way from the hotel to the

police station. Dr. Boxer was called by tho defendant. He said that ho had examined Rose in the cell about an hour

after his arrest. Eose was porfectly quiet, .not at all obstreperous, and was coherent in his speech. He boro no appearance of being drunk, and lus oondition was not that of a man who had been drunk an hour before. Charles Bird, 0110 of the keepers of the Foresters' Arms Hotel, deposed that it was not true that Rose "put up his hands" at Stewart.

Six men who, among others, were in tho bar at the time, swore that Rose was not drunk, that he was absolutely sober, that he was not disorderly, and that there was 110 disorder. They said that everyone was talking about the result of the fourth Test match when Police Officer Stewart came in.

A summarising of their testimony was that Stewart commented roughly on "this noise," and, ct tho same time, approached Rose, who saiil something to the effect of "Who's making a noise?" Stewart said to Rose, "Have you a drink?" To which Rose answered "No." "Then," said Stewart (according to evidence) "get out of this!" And with that he threw Hop out, and arrested him.

Mr. M'Grath had two more witnesses to call, but his Worship said that it was unnecessary to bring them forward. Ilis Worship: As the charge stands it must fail. That is perfectly clear because the evidence is that he was not drunk. It seems to me that there was sc-me noise. I am satisfied that some words were exchanged between the sergeant and the defendant. I am inclined to think from the weight of evidence that Iho sergeant nude a mistake in thinking that the defendant .was going to attack him. The charge might havo been laid in a different war, but as it is laid it must be dismissed.

Mf. M'Grath: I mako an application, your Worship, that the Court, in view of all the circumstances, shall order that the costs shall be paid, not by the defendant, but the informant. 1 know, it is most unusual, but the circumstances warrant it. , His being arrested is what I call an outrage. lie is a man of good character; he was wrongly arrested; subjected f o tho indignity of being hauled through the public streets by two police oiiicers; Le vas shut up in a police cell; he had to get a doctor, who swears emphatically that the arrested man was not drunk; he will have to pay that doctor; ho will havo to ; pay his solicitor; so I hopo your Worship will not penalise him further by making him pay for the eight subpoenas, mid the expenses of tho working men wno came here and gave evidence on his behalf, and havo lost half a day's work. More will yet be heard of this affair. I ask you in all fairness, in all decency, not to penalise him further by :n,'.ki'Jg him liable for these expenses. His Worship: Your application is quite permissible. I mil not jive you an answer now. I will consider it, and let you know -n the morning.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

"TOO OLD TO WORK." SO KEPT A GAMBLING HOUSE. A sequel to the raid made bv Serjeant Rutledgo and Constables M'lvclvey and Doyle on No. 20 Haining Street on Xliursday night was tho appearance in the Magistrate's Court ye-sterdav morning of a Chinese, named Wong .\'oo, who was charged witli keeping a gaming-house, and two Europeans, na.nul James West James and Thomas Holt, who were chargod with being found in a gai.,ing-houso. Wonu Noo pleaded guilty. Sub-Inspector Sheehan explained that tho house had been wader suspicion for some time. For the past twelve months both Chinese and Europeans had frequented it. Two police constables in plain clothes had purchased pak-a-poo tickets at the place, and had seen a "bank" drawn. Wong Noo was a pak-a-poo agent. By the medium of an interpreter. Wong Noo naid tluit Iw> w«ui rurr old, ami wia uo»bk to *ui!c, uul m tkii

placo to earn a littlo money. In the. circumstance? he asked to l>e dealt with leniently.

His Worship pointed out that tlio extreme penalty for tho otfonco was .£IOO. He fined tlio defendant £25, in default six weeks' imprisonment. Ho ordered that tho articles of gaining which hail been seized should be forfeited.

James and Holt also pleaded guilty. They were each fined X 2, in default three days' imprisonment. BY-LAW CASES. (Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) For furious driving, Joseph Greeks was fined i£l. Tor failing to register their doga tho following were fined ss. on every charge: —Edward Ede (two charges); John G. Gilbertson, and John Gregory. Joseph Jiissington was fined 10a. for failing to have a nam bar painted on a registered cart. Robert Burgess was fined 10s. fox driving a taxi-cab without a light at a time when the ear should have been lighted. OTHER CHARGES. For insobriety Edith Home was . fined 55., John JJaugh .El, John Walsh £\, and William Ballantyne .£l- - Patrick Coyle was fined JC3 for breaking a prohibition order. John Ryan pleaded not guilty of playing a game of hazards. Sub-Inspector Sheehan asked leave to amend the charge to one of playing a game with dice. His Worship would not grant permission for this, and the case was withdrawn. SUPREME COURT. THE NGAWAKAAKUFE BLOCK. > IS THE LEASE VOEDP CHIEF JUSTICE ASKED TO DECIDE. In the Supreme Court yesterday there was further hearing of tho case in which tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) was asked to declare as void the lease of &JG9 acres of Native land, known as tho Ngawakaaktipe Block. The parties to the action were Martha M'Gregor (formerly Martha Mahupuku), plaintiff, and the District Land Registrar, of Wellington, and AVilliam and Thomas Harris, of Martinborough, defendants.

Mr. C. I'. Skerrett, K.C., with Mm Mr. F. E. "Ward, appeared for Martha M'Gregor, and Mr. H. D. Bell, K.C., with" him Mr. C. B. Morison, appeared for William and Thomas Harris. Tho District Land Registrar, who was not represented, submitted to the judgment of the Court. Particulars of the claim and the defence filed were reported in yesterday's issue. When tho Court adjourned on Thursday evening, the plaintiff's case had closcd. In opening the defence yesterday, Mr. Bell contended that Mr. Skerrett had produced not a tittle of evidence iii support of the allegations of fraud. It had been suggested that, if a man made an agreement or deed in :his life time, and that deed required the consent of a lessor, or the confirmation of the Native Land Court, it : could not bo registered after the death of tho maker, 'l'he suggestion had also been made that, because there was nothing in the minutes of the Native Land Court to show that the valuation askod for by Judgo Mair had been produced to him, therefore it f.as not produced. Connsel protested at the time, and again protested_ against tho search of records of the Native Land Court, for the purpose of showing that a Court of competent jurisdiction had not done its duty. Thero was a proper way for setting aside a judgment. Continuing. Mr. Bell said that the only evidence which lie proposed to call was that to show that his clients had produced what it had been suggested they had withheld. He proposed to call Mr. Treadwell, to show that valuations were made at the request of Judge Mnir, and placed before the latter. Counsel denied that it was within the function of the Supreme Court to inquire into the matter at all.

After Mr. C. 11. Treadwell had given, evidence on the lines mentioned, he was cross-examined by Mr. Skerrett. ' The case was then adjourned until' a later date, for the presentation of a surveyor's report, and for hearing of legal argument. CLAUSES OF A WILL. Mr. Justice Chapman was asked yesterday to interpret certain clauses in. the will of Walter Richard MUlwain, of Auckland, deceased. Mr. J. W. Macdonald appeared for the Public Trustee, who is tho present trusteo of a portion of the will, and also for the sons of the deceased, while Mr. A. W. Blair appeared for the daughters. The questions that were placed before .his Honour for decision were, . whether certain bequests of incomo were specific or residuary, and by whom should certain charges and income tax be paid? After hearing argument, his Honour intimated that ho would tako time to consider his decision. =====