The Standard. (PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY, AND SATURDAY.) THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 1874.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume II, Issue 146, 12 March 1874, Page 2

The Standard. (PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY, AND SATURDAY.)

THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 1874.

“ We shall sell to no man justice or right: We eiiall deny to no man justice or right: We shall defer to no man justice or right.”

“ The Police versus Gouklay.” Such was the startling announcement made at the Policcf'Court on Tuesday morning last, wheii Mr. Govrlay, Junior, was charged, under the Vagrant Act, with using abusive language. And it is to be regretted, on more grounds than one, that the charges, a report of which appears in another column, were magnified to the extent that they were, —or, in fact, that they were brought into Court at all. The charges, to our mind, were by no means, so clearly proved as to warrant the visitation of heavy penalties, or. indeed, the infliction of

any fine ; for the circumstance seems to have weighed very little with the Bench, that, even admitting the allegations of Sergeant Stanhope and Constable Joyce, there was, as the defendant’s counsel remarked, “ six of “ one aud half-a-dozen of the other.” The point was disputed as to which threw the first stone. The fact that defendant’s own witness (Bahsdell) deposed to hearing the defendant refuse to recognize the Sergeant’s authority even to suggest that the noisy men’s money should be given back to them, does not warrant a peace officer in retaliating in kind, and so fan the flame it is his duty to keep under. Admittedly, Sergeant Stanhope rejoined upon the defendant; and he could have had no motive but retaliation in framing a sentence which he knew and intended to be, offensive. Words were bandied; epithets came freely in the excitement, and the Constables drag the defendant to Court to answer for charges which, if they were not instrumental to promote, did not do their utmost to prevent.

The question here presents itself : Have Constables a statute right to demand an entrance to public buildings, other than hotels and public houses ? This is a point the public would like to be satisfied on, and it would have been useful had it been raised in Court, for there are two views to take of the matter. If Constable Joyce was placed on duty in the hall by permission, he obviously did not do his duty in permitting the interruptions of the. performance, nor in studying the comfort of those he should have ejected. If Sergeant Stanhope was not placed on dutyinside the hall, (aud, assuming the non-existence of a prescriptive right of entry) Mr. Gourlay was perfectly justified in treating his assumption of authority over the management of the hall, wi th contempt, so that the irritation caused by being designated a “ stroll- “ ing play actor,” and at receiving no assistance at their hands, was easily to be accounted for. There can be no question that the police must be supported in the execution of their duty; so must the public when they exceed, or fall short of it. In that interest we regret having the conclusion forced upon us, that in the sustentation, if not in the grounding, of the informations, Sergeant Stanhope and Constable Joyce have laid themselves open to a charge of animus against the defendant, and of too eager a desire to color the surrounding circumstances, —and Mr. Cuff addressed himself pretty plainly to that point. The Constables decided that each shall lay an information against Mr. Gourlay, and each shall be the support of the other ; they had no independent witness, if we except Clements, whom the plaintiff’s counsel declined to examine ; and they employed the services of a lawyer. For what, unless to pile on the agony of law costs in case of conviction ? It was an ordinary police case ; and there were no points of law—barring the right we allude to, but which did not crop up —likely to require a lawyer’s aid. They, moreover, laid the informations, in the most offensive form, under the Vagrant Act; while the Rural Police Act would have met the case just as well. Constable Joyce, too, said in his evidence, that he “ had never heard “ more disgusting language in the “ lowest brothel, than that made use “ of by defendant.” Constable Joyce may be able to give more accurate testimony on what the staple conversation in those places is than we are, but, we ask, is his statement mathematically correct ? Where is even his own proof of it ? Can we believe that if such language was used, it would have been employed in such a meek and quiet way that only one lad in a crowd heard it, and which, according to him, differed materially from the statement of the Constables ? We come round to the point that even if true, the charges were clothed with an artificial, improbable, coloring,and with a manifest desire “ to make it a caution to defendant ” in more ways than one. But why was there such a hot desire to make it a “ caution ” to Mr. Gourlay in particular? The police have chosen this as a representative case from amongst a class to which they are no strangers, and with which the streets of Gisborne teem day bv day. The zeal displayed in this case which is dragged unnecessarily forth from the darkness, naturally draws public attention from it to the many really brothel-like scenes both of action and speech which, as we have before written, make our streets reek again with bestiality, and comparisons are drawn.unfavorable to the police. We know well, and record it for their benefit, that the police are not backed up as they should be, by authority, and they may, possibly, often lose heart; but we certainly think, that, in making Mr. Corbet Gourlay an example of their vigilance, desire for success has somewhat outstripped their prudence; and they have taken

a deal of unnecessary trouble to operate on a stranger, while so many opportunities are afforded nearer home. Now that they have begun the work we hope to see it continued, or we shall be obliged to remind them of the text chosen by themselves on Tuesday.