NO CORROBORATION

Evening Star, Issue 23693, 28 September 1940, Page 20

NO CORROBORATION

SEAMAN'S COMPLAINT AGAINST POLICE ALLEGATIONS OF ILL-TREATMENT REFUTED UNPROVOKED ASSAULT ON SERGEANT “ On the evidence before me 1 am quite unable to find any justification whatever for holding that there has been any corroboration of the story told by the defendant that he was assaulted in the police station, either in the watch-house or in the cell,” said the magistrate (Mr H. W. Bundle), in referring to allegations made by Luke John Lonergan, a young seaman, when lie answered charges in the Police Court yesterday afternoon of assaulting Sergeant King in the execution ol Ids duty and resisting the sergeant. Lonergan was before the court last week, and was remanded to enable inquiries to be made concerning his allegations of the treatment he had received.

His Worship added that the accused had committed an unprovoked assault on Sergeant Kjng,_ and had it not been that directly or indirectly he received severe physical punishment ho would have sentenced him to a substantial term of imprisonment. The accused, who was represented by Mr C. J. L. White, pleaded guilty to the charge of assault and not guilty to tho resisting charge. Sergeant F. Johnson, who prosecuted, said that when the case came before tho court on the previous Friday, Mr White made remarks, chiefly by innuendo, the inference being that Lonergan had been ill-treated by' a member of members of the Police Force. The remarks were not supported by evidence, and the sergeant said ho was pleased to say that that evidence was not forthcoming. Mr Johnsen said ho was safe in saying that at no time did Lonergau complain of his treatment. The sergeant said he saw the accused the next morning, when the accused intimated that he was pleading guilty. The accused said he had had a few beers and had been bothered by a few men cadging at the hotel. He said that had it not been for a few “ booses ” this would not have happened, and he did not know why he had assaulted the sergeant. Because of the accused’s behaviour, Sergeant Johnsen proceeded, the licensee was putting him out of tho hotel as he was authorised to do by the Licensing Act, which also authorised the licensee to call on the police for assistance, and that was what happened. As soon as Sergeant King got the accused out of the hotel he was satisfied to let the matter stay there, hut when the sergeant turnedhis back the accused struck him a violent blow on the lip which required stitching. “A COWARDLY ASSAULT.” “It was not only an unprovoked but a cowardly assault,” said Sergeant Johnsen. The accused ran away, and when the sergeant caught him there was a violent struggle, the accused being injured when he struck the bowser. Any injury caused to Lonergan was brought about by his own cowardly conduct.

Evidence was given by Dr W. J. Porteous that ho had examined Sergeant King, whoso lip required

stitching, the injury being consistent with a blow. Ho examined the accused and found that lie was suffering from a wound of the right upper eyelid and also some bruising of Ids nose. The wound required three stitches. Dr Portcons said that the injury was consistent with being caused by a fall, and to His Worship lie said that it was likely to be caused by a protruding object. Mr White: Suppose he got a severe blow from a man’s fist, would that account for it? Witness said he supposed that it was possible. Alexander Strachan Stewart, licensee of the Law Courts Hotel, said that the accused came into the bar, and a barman directed witness’s attention to the fact that he considered this man should not be served. Another barman served the accused. Sergeant King came in to inquire if a package of cartridges had been left for him, and when the accused, who was in an ugly mood, grasped witness. Sergeant King put the accused out of the door in a kindly manner. The accused came at the sergeant in a cowardly manner and put in a dirty blow, after which lie ran away, the sergeant chasing him. Sergeant King, whose evidence was taken when the case was previously before the court, was cross-examined by Mr White, stating that when he tackled the accused from behind, the accused unfortunately collided with tho bowser head on. Witness added that when the accused was in the watch-house he broke out again, and witness had to throw him on the floor of the watch-house. ‘‘ It is not true that I punched him while ho was on the floor of the watchhouse,” the sergeant stated. Witness said lie saw the accused in the cell afterwards, but he did not punch him. Mr White: I suggest you lost your temper.

Witness; I did not lose my temper, but I certainly felt like it. Sergeant T. E. Johnston gave evidence as to having seen Sergeant King and the accused running down Cumberland street, and that when Sergeant King overtook the accused tho latter fell forward and appeared to go face first into the bowser.

The Magistrate at this stage agreed to the withdrawal of the resisting charge. Mr White said that the accused arrived in Dunedin the day before the happening. He had gone into the hotel and was drinking there.. It was perfectly plain from the evidence of the licensee that he had had too much. The licensee intervened, and the accused, who was apparently in a nasty mood, reacted iu the way he did. The accused said iie did not know that the man he had struck was a sergeant of police. Counsel said he was not seeking to_ justify the assault on the sergeant in the first instance, and the accused was extremely sorry it had happened. The accused had then tun away, and a scuffle ensued. The next morning ho made a definite accusation of maltreatment . against Sergeant King. The accused had maintained throughout that he had been assaulted by the sergeant in the watch-house and in the cell. It was quite possible, however, said Mr White, that the accused did obtain these serious injuries from tho bowser in the scuffle outside. Whether they were accidental or otherwise, there was no doubt that the accused was very seriously hurt. THE ACCUSED’S' STORY. The accused, in evidence, admitted striking the sergeant, but added that he did not know at the time that the man he struck was a member of tho police. The only thing he remembered was getting a push, and he turned arid hit him. He remembered running along the street, but did not remember hitting the bowser. When he got to the police station Sergeant King put his arm round witness’s head, and while witness was on the floor the sergeant started punching him. Witness did not resist because there were others there. The blows struck, were mostly about the face. An hour or an hour and a-half later, Sergeant King came into the cell and hit wdtness on the side of the nose again. There was blood everywhere. Witness had been attending the Hospital every day since. Tho accused admitted to Sergeant Johnson, in cross-examination, that he had not complained to any member of the police about his treatment. The reason he did not complain to the doctor was because lie was afraid he would get some more.

Mr Johnson told the court that the accused had been before the court previously for assault, and. also for theft. ACCUPPH’S STATFMPNT UNCO RROBO’RATED.

The Magistrate said that the accused had pleaded guilty to assaulting Sergeant King, and the evidence showed ho was in nn hotel which was known_ to be extremely well conducted. Tn view of the injuries the accused had received and in view of the statement made by counsel, it was proper that the accused should be called. He now gave evidence on oath, though in effect he said he did not remember what, hapnened. Sergeant King denied _ that there had been any assault bv him in the watch-house or the cell. There was no corroboration of accused’s statement Hi at ho was assaulted in either place. His Worship added that all the evidence supported that of Sergeant King that the injuries received by the accused. and' justly received, were received when br> came into contact with the bowser. The accused made no complaint to the police or to the doctor who examined him. and his explanation in regard to the latter was not very convincing. His memory of what period obviously was not at all clear. Tn view of the injuries the accused had received and the phvsicnl state he was in. His Worship said be_ did_ not propose to impose a term of imprisonment. The accused was convicted and placed on probation for 12 months, a condition being that he pay expenses (P 5 Us j ns directed by the probation officer.