The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1875.

Evening Star, Issue 3942, 13 October 1875, Page 2

The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1875.

We heard that some dissatisfaction was felt by a certain class of society regarding the verdict of the jury in Haley’s case, and of the conduct of the warder who shot him; but until receiving a copy ot the ‘ Guardian ’ on Saturday morning, we did not believe that any journal would give currency to the murmurs, much less support them. Fully coinciding with the jury in their rider approving the warder’s conduct, we did not think comment was needed, or we should have noticed the matter earlier. The ‘Guardian’ has “ waited with curiosity ” for authorities regarding what that journal terms “the astonishing legal doctrines ” on which the jury acted. No doubt men’s minds are a-flf.-iwiit.iy afibcJca. by ihc sauiv circumstances. For our we

are astonished that anyone should doubt their existence or their necessity. We will not bore our readers with many dry quotations from legal works on the subject; one will be quit© sufficient to show how the law stands in regard to the matter. A legal authority writing on the law of arrest defines it thus : . J n onminaP,matters the object of an arrest is to secure the person of one who has, or issupTw i, to hav ° comm ’tt(d an offence, in order tnat he may be brought before a magistrate. An arrest may be mado eith j r by virtue of a warrant, or, where the law authorises it without a warrant But, in many cases, an arrest may be made without a warrant; particularly by officers connected with the administration of justice. A constable, for instance, may arrest in case or felony, if there is r-asonable ground of aus pioron ; and for any breach of the peace actually committed in his view. An officer may, upon a criminal charge, break open doors, if, upon demand for admittance, it cannot be otherwise obtained ; he may likewise, in apprehending a person charged with felony, use any degree of force that may he necessary ; and if the person charged attempt to save himself by flight or resistance, and is killed hy the officer (there being no other means of preventing an escape), the homicide is justifiable ; but if he kill the officer with the duty, it is murder. Priv.de parsons also are not only authorised, but required, to apprehend any person who commits a f-lony in their presence; and in pursuing such felon, they will be justified in breaker doors and in vsing force, as much as an officer, A private person may likewise arrest upon reasonable suspicion of felony ; but inasmuch as this is not a duty enjoined by the law, he is not armed with the same privileges as where he saw the offence committed cannot justify breaking open doors, or u*ing the same degree ©f force; if he kill the supposed offender he will he guilty of manslaughter; and if he be kdled the offence will '>■ the same, aud not murder. It will be seen from these extracts that the law of arrest justifies extreme measures, not only by a constable but by private persons, whenever circumstances require them, and so common are the records of occurrences under that law that reference to them ns haroly needful. In EugUn-u private watchmen killing burglars are held to be justified on proof that no other means of arrest were available. In New South Wales and Victoria bushrangers have been shot in attempts to arrest them, and only a few years back, near Dunedin, an escaped prisoner was killed after having fired several times on the constables ordered to apprehend him. The ‘ Guardian’ and the ‘ Daily Times’ dwell too much upon the character of the man who was killed, and the latter attempts to justify the action of the constable by reference to the enormity of his crimes. With this a warded has nothing to do. His duty is to see that the prisoners under his charge, no matter whether their crimes be great or small, are kept in safe custody. He is not at liberty to judge whether this man is more harmless than that, and on such private opinion to determine to fire upon one and let another escape. So far as he is concerned, it is enough to know that one under his charge has committed the criminal act of endeavoring to escape from prison, for he is not the less a prisoner because stone walls do not surround him. We look upon the sympathy that has been expressed for this convict as a very unhealthy symptom. The mere fact of “making a run for it” does not change the character of the crimes ne has committed, but aggravates them, as it evinces a determination to defy the law he has already outraged, and which has decreed that* he shall suffer certain punishment. To draw a picture of a defenceless convict running from an armed warder, and to ask the public to sympathise with the ipan who was violating his duty, and to condemn him who was fulfilling his,is a grave error on the part of a public journal. Haley need not have run, or having made a run he might have stopped when called to, and his life would have been saved. Vi’hen be started he knew the risk he incurred, and he accepted it, and suffered. In our opinion the evidence before the coroner’s jury pi'oved the warder to have acted with great forbearance, and that he only resorted to extremities when obliged to do so by the stern requirements of his duty. We trust all our police are equally forbearing aud trustworthy.