LENCH AND BAR.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 450, 27 February 1909, Page 4

LENCH AND BAR.

MR HACKETT’S EXPERIENCE.

The young Auckland lawyer, Mr \V. E. Hackett, who was arrested for refusing to pay a fine of .£5 inflicted by Mr R. W. Dyer, S.M., on February 9 for contempt of Court, has given an account of his brief gaol experience. He says: " I was walking up Queen Street with several officers of the Citizen’s League at 3.4 5 this afternoon, when I'was stopped by Constable Armstrong, who said he had a warrant for my commitment to Mount Eden prison for non-payment of the fine, and he asked if I would pay the amount. I replied that I would not. He then said that I, would have to go with him.. Tasked for half an hour’s respilein-ordef that I might carry out the mission entrusted tome, K but the constable was jeremptory, and.T, walked up with him to the police station. There I was detained in order that I might be taken up to to the prison in the van with another prisoner, for whom a warrant was being, obtained. While I was waiting there, Sub-Inspector Heudrey came in. He expressed regret at seeing me in such a position, and asked if there was anything that he could do for mo. I replied that the only request I had to make was that word of my arrest should be conveyed to my mother. I heard the sub-inspector give orders that this should be done, and I also beard him direct that I should uot be taken to the prison in the van, but accompanied there in a tram by a constable. This was done, and I arrived at the prison at 4.40. ‘‘As I entered the gate, I experienced the strange feeling of passing through in real earnest where-1 had gone so frequently before professionally. I was ushered into the chief warder's room, and a warrant for my apprehension, signed by Mr Dyer, was produced. I was ordered to deliver up all my belongings, which I did, and I signed the form on which a note of them was made. I was then ordered to take off my coat and other garments, which I did, and then a minute examination was made of my arms for the purpose of ascer-taining-whether there were any marks upon them for future identification. I was then asked my full name, my mother’s full name, where I was born, where I. lived, what was ray religion, and what ray age was. All this information I gave, I was then ordered to take off my boots and socks, which I did, and got on the measuring machine. The officer said my height was five feet. At this I remarked that there must be some mistake, that I had not quite slmink to that insignificance. The officei looked again, and gave my height as 5 feet inches. My weight was taken, and my face was examined, ap-

patently for the purpose of ascertaining the colour ol my eyes and general peculiarities. The officer then proceeded to record his obsei rations.”

Mr Hackett went on to say that, while the officer was thus engaged,,the telephone rang, and he was asked whether he.had any object ion to anyone paying the fine for him. He replied that, while he would’ not pay the amount himself, he did not object to anyone else paying the fine. Alter considerable delay he was informed that the Law Institute would pay the amount, “d was then removed into the prisoners’ examination room,” said Mr Hackett, ‘‘and detained there until shortly before six o'clock, when the amount was paid and I was released. But for the telephone message arriving when it did I should have been removed to a cell. I might add that the warrant staled I was convicted for wilfully interrupting the Court when the Court was giving judgment, though, as a matter of fact, when Mr Dyer gave judgment I was in custody. This misstatement in the warrant will probably come up for investigation by the Law Society. As regards the merits of my case and the treatment I have been subjected to I leave myself absolutely in the hands ol my profession.”

It is understood that the Auckland Law Society is investigating Mr Hackett’s case, and will probably take an important step shortly.