RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3623, 2 October 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, October 2. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., 8.M.)

DgffNKENxrass. Robert Muir, William Smith, asd William M‘Keay, charged with this offence, wepe let off with a caution. —William Cochrane jyaa charged, on remand, wfth being in a right-of-way off George street yesterday — Mr Harris, who appeared for the accused, said that he understood from what had appeared in the papers that this case was adjourned in order ; to ascertain farther information as to the locality where the offence was said to have been committed. He had obtained information from Messrs Webb and Fulton, which showed that the right-of-way referred to was only for the convenience of the tenants living in it, of whom defendant was one. It was not open to the public, and Mr Cochrane had been subjected to great brutality at the hands of the constable. The accused had had a little drink, and one ol his horse? breaking lose, he had called for assistance in % rather boisterous manner, for which the constable had arrested him. Of course the accused refused t.O be taken away from his own door; and he (Mr Harris) submitted that the police had no right to seeing that the accused ’ was in a pirivateright-of-way. —Sub-Inspector Mallard : I beg to assert we havp. This right-of-way is in a precisely similar position to Fleet street.—Mr Harris-: Andjis only open to access to the tenants or Mr Wallace—to i whom the property belongs.—His Worship ! remarked that the question was, had the pablio right to go up there ? He considered

the property only open to tenants.- Sub-In-«pector,Mallard : Then if a Rate was put up at the entrance to this right-of-way by Mr Fultor, a people could go in there and get drunk and we are not to interfere. His Worship said the dear intention of the Ordinance was to give power to a, constable to apprehend if an offender were found in a public place; .but it a man were taken from his own door,'the case was totally different. -Sub-Inspector Mallard: Then I understand that you hold that if a man is'in that right-of-way, s lacking at another person’s door, we have no right to apprehend? All I can say is that itls a strange state of affairs After further argument; Mr Harris asked leave to call evidence showing the gross brutality used by the constable to the accused.—Sub Inspector Mallard asked that the complaint should be represented to the Commissioner.—Mr Harris would have it gone into in Court.—Sub-laspector Mallard: Then I shall object. It is, a matter for the department to interfese with. —Mr Harris Said that accused had been most brutally and unprovpkedly .assault cl j an assault which no old them her of the force would be guilty of —Sub-In-spector Mallard pointed out that all the bad characters in Dunedin resided in rlght-of wavs.—His Worship said it would be as well if the caae were opened up again.—Sergeant Hanlon said that a complaint had been made, to him at about nine o’clock on the night in question, by one of accused’s a Mrs Findlay, of his disturbances. S eing accused drunk at about midnight, he gave Constable Crookes instructions to arrest him if he made a disturbance at Mrs Findlay’s. Constable Crookes said that in according with instructions received from the last Witness, he arrested accused for making a disturbance. The latter threatened to trip him, and attempted to do s©. —The further bearing of the charge-was’ adjourned till two oiplock; On the Court resuming* the police called Mrs Findlay and her daughter, who certified to the defendant’s drunkenness and violent conduct, of which the fmt mentioned caused her to have fear for her life ; while the daughter deposed that “ Old Cochrane was mortal drunk.” For the defence Cochrane’s son and a lad named Humphreys were called. Both swore clearly and most positively that when arrested Cochraae w,as standing alongsidejhis dray in his own yard, and that when he would not let the shafts: go the constable struck him across the hand with his baton. His Worship considered Cochrane’s conduct had been very reprehensible; it had been proved he was drunk and violent, but to have justified their interference the police should have been called in by Mrs Findlay for her protection. The question was : did the facts prove the charge, which was that of being drunk and disorderly under th© •Town and Country Police Ordinance, and to warrant conviction the offence must be com mitted in a street, thoroughfare, or public place ? Now it was clearly proved that when apprehended he was not in the right-of way, bjjt on his own ground. The story told by the policeman—that Cochrane hurt ; himself by, coming.into contact with his batpn—was absurd, and he Had no hesitation 'in*saying so. If the policeman had wanted to guard himself from a blow, as he said, he would have raised his arm, and hot his baton, which was the reverse of a guard.—The SubInspector: It is.a splendid protection.—-Mis Worship gpuld not convict, but if Cpchrape had been changed under the Constabulary Ordinance he would decidedly haim done so. Case dismissed with a caution,' ■ [Left sitting.]