MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 409, 11 July 1908, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

(Before Mr A. D. Thomson, S.M.) At yesterday’s sitting of the above Court, Walter H. Anderson (Mr Barnard) was charged by the police with being drunk on the 3rd inst., while in charge of a trap and horse. He was further charged with resisting Constable Sweeney while in the execution of his duty. Constable Woods conducted the case on behalf of the police.

Accused pleaded not guilty. Constable Sweeney, in evidence, said that on the 3rd July, at 8.40 p.m., he saw a horse and trap outside the Manawatu Hotel, unattended, and without a light. Waited by the horse as it appeared restless. At 9 p.m. Anderson came out of the Manawatu Hotel under the influence ot liquor. Asked if he was in charge of the horse and trap, and Anderson replied, “What do you want to know for ?” Told Anderson that the horse had been unattended and there was no light on the trap, which was contrary to the borough by-laws, Anderson stated that he left a man in charge. Asked Anderson for his name. Anderson asked what the Constable wanted his name for—did witness want to summons him ? He concluded by saying, “if he was looking for trouble he could have it.” He then walked towards the horse and trap. Witness followed him, and placed the chain round the wheel and arrested Anderson on a charge of being drunk while in charge of a horse and trap. Anderson resisted, and witness partly carried him to near the firebell, when Anderson remarked, “You can’t take me,” and closed with witness. A struggle then ensued, and witness was locked up. Cross-examined by Mr Barnard: Arrested the accused .on a charge of drunkenness while in charge of a horse and cart. Did not use any bad language while arresting accused. Had accused given his name and address, and provided some reliable person had taken charge of the horse, he would not have arrested him.

Constable Woods gave evidence as to the accused’s condition _an hour and a half later, when bailed out. Accused was then under the influence of liquor, and wanted to fight Constable Sweeney when brought into the office. R. Moore gave evidence to the effect that on the night in question he was proceeding along Park Street and saw a number of people near the fire bell. Upon investigation, he noticed Anderson violently resisting Constable Sweeny. Anderson appeared to be somewhat under the influence of liquor. Advised Anderson to go quietly with the constable. Accused thm went quietly.

Mr Barnard, for defendant, contended that his client was not under the influence of liquor, and that consequently the police had no right to arrest'him for drunkenness, nor for refusing to give his name, as a mere refusal without more was insufficient to justify an arrest without warrant. The arrest was therefore illegal, and_ the accused was accordingly justified in resisting the constable with a reasonable amount of force. The constable was not acting in the execution of his duty. Both the accused and himself were for the time being in the position of private individuals, and the constable’s action was equivalent to an assault. The police should undoubtedly have a free hand in the discharge of their duties, but it was plain that on this occasion the constable had not used that amount of discretion which the public were entitled to demand from one occupying a position of trust such as he held.

In his evidence, Anderson stated that he was out fishing all day. Came into Foxton about 8 p.m. went into the Manawatu Hotel to try and sell some fish. Had two whiskies, and no more. Eee, the porter, said the light on the trap was out, and accused asked Mrs Shadbolt for a piece of caudle which he got. When going outside to put it in the the lamp, he found Constable Sweeny in charge. The constable asked him his name, and he didn’t see why he should give his name to the police as he had done no harm. The constable arrested him, and when they got to the firebell, the constable was pinching his arm. His arm was tender. It had been broken some years ago. He pulled away from the constable and the constable made a grab at him. They struggled and both fell to the ground. Accused said to the constable, “If you are going to be rough with me, I shall be rough with you.” They fell to the ground three times, and on the last occasion the constable used obscene language. Mr Moore and others advised him to go quietly, which he did.

Cross-examined by Constable Woods, accused "'said he had only been convicted once before for assault. He was sure he did not go into any other hotel. He admitted that owing to having abstained from food all day, the drinks affected him. Could not stand much drink.

For the defence, Fred Charles gave evidence as to witnessing the arrest of Anderson. Heard Anderson say he would go quietly if the constable did not pinch his arm. Saw the constable and Anderson- struggling. Anderson threw the constable twice. Heard the constable use obscene language to Anderson. Anderson did not appear to be drunk. Did not hear accused use bad language and was not in accused’s company.

Hugh Walls gave evidence as to witnessing the struggle between the constable aud accused. Heard obscene language used, but could not swear who used it, except that

it was not Anderson. Anderson was not drunk, and he did not think he resisted the police. Mrs Shadbolt stated that she served Anderson with two whiskies. Accused remained in the hotel about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour. He was not drunk.

George Tees, witnessed the rough-and-tumble. Heard Anderson say, “ Don’t pinch my arm.” Anderson did not appear to be under the influence of liquor. Did not hear any bad language used. The Magistrate said he was of opinion that.acuused was under the influence of liquor at the time of his arrest, and he would convict and discharge him on that point, For resisting the police he would be lined 20s and costs.