THE UNTACTFUL CONSTABLE.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1691, 6 March 1913, Page 3

THE UNTACTFUL CONSTABLE.

FOREMER TRAM HAND. HIS BATON & HIS ROMANCING. CIVILIAN FINED. In tho Magistrate's Court yesterday morning, Mr. W. G. Biddell, S.M., gave judgment in the case in which James Brown was charged with having assaulted Constable John Willetts, formerly em-ployed-as a tram hand. ', During the hearing, of the case last Friday, Mr. V. R. -Meredith, counsel for Brown, adduced evidence with the purpose of showing that Constable Willetts was an untactful man, and Willetts admitted in the witness-box that ho had struck Brown several times with his baton. Evidence also was given by some tramway employees to the effect that Willetts told them (after the arrest) that Brown had hit him, but that he had afterwards "dealt with Brown in the cell."

At the conclusion of the evidence}- Mr. Meredith contended that tho case should be dismissed. Brown, he said, v,-as charged with having assaulted an officer who was doing his duty. When the' police officer exceeded lus authority, he was not afforded the protection of the .Act; he was on the level of an ordinary citizen; and an action co.uld only be taken for common assault. The information could not be amended to one of common assault, so the only course was for this action to be dismissed, and Willetts given the opportunity of proceeding as an ordinary citizen against Brown.

"In this case," said his Worship, in the course of his judgment, "the defendant (Brown) pleaded not guilty to a charge\of assaulting a constable by striking him in tho eye. There ore two features of the evidence which have to be considered. One refers to the statement of tho constable to'some of the witnesses after the assault that defendant had been 'dealt with in tile cell'; and the other feature is the events which led up to the assault. With regard to the statements of the assault upon Browu in the cell, I think that the constable must have , been romancing when, he made the statements (to certain tramway employees). It is proved tha.t he did make them. It should be obvious to the constable, and to any other constable, that such statements are foolish and apt to place him iti a false position. I don't think Brown was dealt with in the cell; in fact, the evidence is in the--other direction. . . . BrOwn did not make any complaint at the time, nor did lie go into the* box and give evidence about his treatment.

"Coming to the matter that led up to the assault, it is clear that the defendant (Brown) was partly under the influence of licjuor and was making himself objectionable to Mason (a restaurantkeeper in Newtown), and that Mason called the constable to-interfere. Tho constable did interfere and continued his interference for some time. Tho constable wanted Brown to go home, and Brown did not wont to ro. I am of the opinion that if the constable had used more tact tho trouble would not have occurred". - "However, in the circumstances, I am not prepared to say that the nonstable acted without I think that ho had authority! The defendant was interfered with, and, boinc under the influence of liquor, he became irritable and hit tho constable in the eye. The interference which Brown suffered did not warrant such, a severe blow as he struck tho constable. Defendant (Brown) will be convicted and fined ,£2." THREE MEN IN TROUBLE. ■ ' ■ Herbert Gregory Bailev was further remanded, till March 12, on a charge of his having failed to account for .£2O to the 'New Zealand Times" Company. Bail (.£80) was allowed. Joi'ies Moore was further remanded, till March 12, on a charge of havins foiled to account for £7 3s. id. to the "New Zealand Times" Company. Ball (.£SO) was allowed. Butler Luslc was further 'remanded till-March 12, on charges of his havine tmlsd ■to account to Frederick James •p n°.'.\ ,( |na "W of "New Zealand ■truth ) for sums of money totalling JSI2 »s. Bail (.£SO) was allowed. INSOBRIETY. For insobriety John Moonev was fined 10s., and Jeremiah O'Donoghue 10s.