MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 1022, 4 October 1877, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday, October £. (Before G-. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M.) Resisting and Assaulting the Police. —Q-eorge Jackson appeared on remand in answer to this charge. Mr Thomas, for the accused, called a fresh witness, who said that he saw Sergeant Wilson draw his baton and strike Jackson on the head with it. Jackson then fell on the ground and gave a groan. This was while Jackson and Firman were struggling. Prior to Firman's coming up behind Jackson, collaring him by the neck, and saying he would run him in, Jackson, who was with several others, was talking rather loudly, but not conducting himself in a way to justify interference on the part of the police. When cross-examined by Inspector Buckley, witness was certain that things had occurred just as he had related them. He had had some drinks with Jackson that evening. Mr Jackson (not the prisoner) had heard a noise last Sunday morning under his window. He also heard what he took to be a blow, which was followed by groans. There had been no noise of any consequence prior to the assault—the blow, the groans, and the words " Let me go, let me go." He observed at the time that some one must have been stunned. There was a sound of crashing against the window shutters, and afterwards he saw two men go away leading another man who scarcely moved his legs. Constable Firman stated that bis lamp fell on the ground in front of Mr Jackson's, but he did not see Sergeant Wilson's baton fall. Sergeant Wilson corroborated this evidence, and said that the sound of the fall of the lamp might resemble that of a blow. Mr Thomas then addressed the Court, contending that the man's state was not such as to justify any interference on behalf of the police, and arguing that he had been treated in a most unjustifiable manner by Constable Firman. His Worship said that there was no one more ready than he was to support the police in the execution of their duty, which often had to be performed under trying circumstances. Great allowance, too, ought to be made for what might be done in a moment of irritation and under provocation, but at the same time he should do his utmost to prevent any undue exerci6e of authority, such as appeared to have been indulged in in the present instance. It was perfectly clear from the evidence that Sergeant Wilson had seen nothing in the conduct of the accused to warrant his apprehension, otherwise he himself would have taken steps to arrest him, and he had seen him just before Firman had. Constable Firman appeared to have acted as no man should ever have done in the circumstances. Not only had he interfered most unjustifiably at the outset, but he had acted in an extremely brutal manner afterwards. There was not the shadow of a doubt that he had acted with extreme brutality, and the man's arrest was nothing but a gross piece of meddlesome interference on his part. His Worship would take care that the Commissioner of Police was acquainted with the facts. Inspector Buckley said he would see to the matter. His Worship was very sorry to have to speak so strongly, but he considered it to be his duty. It was very seldom that the police could be accused of undue exercise of authority, but such had been the case in the present instance. The charges against the accused would be dismissed, but his Worship would not allow costs, inasmuch as the accused had been the worse of liquor, although, he had not used bad language, nor had he been particularly noisy. False Thomas Hcndley was charged with, endeaVouring to obtain board

and lodging, to the amount of £7 ss, on false pretences, from John Barrett, hotel-keeper. Mr Thomas appeared for the accused. Detective Benjamin stated that he had arrested accused at the Sandhills. On hearing the charge explained, accused said he had a contract under the City Council, and that his intention was to pay the money when it was done. John Barrett, of Barrett's Family Hotel, said that the accused had gone to his house, on the 15th of Jnly last, and asked for accommodation, which was granted. In a day or two after he told witness that he had got an appointment in the Engineer's department on the Christchurch railway. Witness agreed to take monthly payments and to let him stay on that representation. Witness did not ask for the first month's pay, but he asked him on the> 3rd of September, and accused said that he had to mortgage his pay for a debt he owed in Dunedin. Witness then told him he would have to leave, and ha afterwards found out that he had not been working at all in the Engineer's department. When he left he owed witness £7 ss, and during the time he stayed he was in the habit of taking away his lunch every day. Otto Peez, employed in the office of the Engineer, had never seen the accused in the Engineer's office, but he might have worked outside on the railways. Joseph Hearth, time-keeper at the Eailway Engineer's department, said that there was no such man employed as Thomas Hendley since the month of July last. Mr Thomas asked for an adjournment in order to produce testimonials, and evidence to show that the accused had been led day by day by Mr Conyers to expect employment on the railway, and he was now in the employment of the City Council. He did not think that the Vagrant Act applied to such cases, as the man had truly told Barrett that he had received an appointment which he only expected to receive. The man was now in employment, and was willing to pay Mr Barrett in instalments. Mr Barrett was not desirous of pressing for a conviction, and, in fact, Mr Thomas would ask for a dismissal. The Court, in considering the features of the case, agreed to dismiss the accused, and he was dismissed accordingly. Foeging A Pbomissory Note.—Eichard Tubman was charged with forging and uttering a promissory note, in the name of his brother T. Tubman, for the payment of £2O. Detective Walker had arrested the accused in Mr Michael Murphy's office on the 2nd inst. on the charge named. He said " Let me bring my brother here, and it'll be all right. I've obtained nothing on it; you might let me go." The note produced had been handed to witness in prisoner's presence. Michael Murphy, commission agent, living in Christchurch, aaid that on the Ist instant, at four in the afternoon, the accused came to his office asking when he lent money. He also asked if witness would take the endorsement ot his brother, Thomas Tubman, cattle dealer, to a bill of £2O. Witness said he would take it. Prisoner then promised to go and see his brother and to be back by about five on the same day. Witness left the office about a quarter past five, and prisoner had not returned by that time. When witness got home to his private residence, Barbadoes street, he was told that prisoner had been there several times. He came again about half-past six, and presented the bill produced, and asked for the money. Witness retained the bill, and said if he called at the office at ten next morning he would get the money. The prisoner called next morning, and shortly afterwards the detective came in, while prisoner was there. The prisoner ran his pen through the name Richard Tubman on the bill, while in witness's office. Eventually witness handed the bill to the detective. Thomas Tubman, farmer at Papanui, said he was a brother of the accused. [The witness, addressing the Court, said it was hard for him to be examined, and asked if he could not be excused. The Court sympathised with the witness, but feared he must give evidence.] He had not signed the promissory note produced, nor had he given any authority to sign it. This was all the evidence, and Inspector Buckley asked for a remand, as there was another case pending against the prisoner. A remand was granted till October 12th, to be brought up sooner if required.