The Evening Star FRIDAY, MARCH 18, 1870.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2142, 18 March 1870, Page 2

The Evening Star FRIDAY, MARCH 18, 1870.

It is always a delicate matter to comment on the decisions of magistrates. They are supposed to be above suspicion as to their motives, and to decide according to the evidence brought before them. We may fairly make allowances for the difficulties of their position, and consider they are desirous to administer even-handed justice to the best of their ability. But this does not place their judgments beyond that fair criticism that is the best safeguard against abuse of the power that is vested in them. It is on this ground that we think it our duty to make a few observations on the verdict arrived at in the late charge against the police at Port Chalmers, from which we unhesitatingly state we differ, for we do not consider it justified by the evidence placed before the Bench. It is quite within the range of possibility that the police may sometimes in the execution of their duty have to use moans which seem to bystanders more severe than necessary. The misfortune is that from mistaken views the sympathies of the people are more commonly with tho culprits than with tho police. The popular idea is that a drunken brawler is to be pitied, although in his senseless brutality he insults women, lays a policeman’s head open, and narrowly escapes inflicting injuries upon another that might have maimed him for life. The police are expected to submit to all this or any other degradation or cruelty that may be visited upon them ; but if a little severity is used in self-defence, magistrates like those at Port Chalmers are to be found who so far fall in with the popular feeling as to weaken tho hands of the police by inflicting a fine upon them, though acting in the clear line of duty. It is idle to pretend that this fine was justified by the evidence adduced at the hearing. From first to last there was gross exaggeration in the account of the injuries received by Scott, While in the box he evidently attributed all the pains and stiffnesses he said he felt, and which, if true, were traceable to his own frantic exertions, to blows which were never struck. From his own account, if his memory were really defective, any man would gather that he was so drunk: as not to be conscious of anything that took place, and this unconsciousness he charged to the account of ill-usage, instead of to the disgusting excess of which he had been guilty, The only mark he had about his head was a black eye, which might have been produced by bis brandishing the loose handcuffs. Although he avowed he was struck repeatedly on the head with a bludgeon, there was not a mark to justify the assertion, and it is morally certain that, had it been true, he could not have lived to tell the tale. The real violence was on the part of the prosecutor, who severely injured Constable Erridge about the head, and actually did inflict the damage that he wished the magistrates to understand had been visited upon himself. It is mon strous to suppose that the police are to see one of their number placed in peril, lying on the ground disarmed, exposed to the attacks of a man whose passions are excited by drink, and whose judgment is altogether gone, and not take prompt and decisive steps to rescue him. Is it a time for moral persuasion 1 Is it not in fact absolutely necessary that such a man, with his passions roused to fury, should be secured by force 1 And who can estimate tho exact amount of force necessary under the circumstances so well as those actually engaged in the struggle 1 There were plenty of bystanders who might have lent a hand, but from the feeling displayed they seemed as if they would much rather see a policeman abused or maimed for life than put forth ,the slightest effort to assist in maintaining order. That the prosecutor was not severely injured by the blows struck on the legs was manifested, notwithstanding the evidence of lookers-on. He did • not walk lame, nor show any signs of pain or distress ; in fact, from his personal appearance, with the single exception of the black eye, no one would have judged that lie had been in a scuffle in which he had contrived to wound one policeman on the head, and placed in peril and nearly overmastered another. It is evident that, from some cause or other, there is a feeling against the police. It may be a personal one, or it may bo a distaste for the institution itself—we will not pretend to say which—but this strong feeling must have been known to the Bench. We will give both tho gentlemen who presided at tho hearing of tho case full credit for striving to divest themselves of participation in it, and to bo impartial ; but they are both public men, holding elective offices. One is Mayor-, tiro other a member of the Provincial Council. They owe their honors to the suffrages of those who made no secret of their hostility to the

police. On these grounds, they are liable to have their motives questioned, if in a case like that which they have just decided they fall in with the popular feeling, and to lose their popularity if they oppose it. For this reason it would have been much better if they had remitted the task of investigating the circumstances to another Court. Had they done so, we feel well persuaded that the police would have been sustained in the course they took. The decision of the magistrates is a premium upon resisting the police, and renders the fulfilment of their unpleasant duties more difficult and dangerous. The case ought not to vest as it stands. The well-being of society demands that the verdict itself should undergo the scrutiny of a competent tribunal, for no policeman is safe, if he is to be made a sacrifice to mere popular dislike.