ASSAULT BY DETECTIVE FARRELL.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1085, 10 June 1882, Page 2

ASSAULT BY DETECTIVE FARRELL.

Subjoined wo give an account, teten from an exchange, of the case iti ‘COfrnection with which first-class Detective James Farrell has been dismissed from the police force:—At the Thames Police Court, before Mr H. Kenrick, R.M., James Farrell was charged with unlawfully assaulting William Fraser on the 15th ult. Mr Miller appeared for the complainant, aud Mr Laishley for the defence. Defendant pleaded not guilty. In opening the case, Mr Miller said the complainant and some of his mates had come into the town and were drinking, and finding that they were being followed and watehed by the defendant, Fraser asked him for an explanation and an apology. Farrell replied that if they called at his office he would give them an apology, and they accordingly called. While there the complainant was taken into a room by himself, and the defendant then committed a cruel and brutal assault upon him. William Fraser, who said he was a bushman, was called, and described the assault in detail. He said that when Farrell was asked for an apology he replied “ If you like to call at my office I’ll give you an apology.’' Complainant and the two Mclsaacs’, his mates, then went to the office, the defendant leading the way. On reaching the office Farrell opened the door, And asked witness to enter. He did so, thinking the others would follow, but when he got in the defendant shut theni out; and barred the door on the inside. He then told witness to pull off his coat and he would give him an apology. Farrell pulled his own coat off, and what followed witness did not exactly know. He was struck, and got stunned by the first or second blow. Farrell had his arm round witness’s neck, and kept punching away. Witness said “That's enough,” hut he still kept at it. He then said, “ Do you want to kill a man altogether,” and Farrell then let him go. By this time his mates had smashed the window. Farrell then produced a bucket of water and a broom, and told him to clear up the blood from the floor. He refused, but the defendant threatened to lock him up unless he did so, and he then swilled the room. Defendant afterwards told him to “ clear out,” and he went into the yard and washed, his face. His left eye was completely blind, and ho could only see a little with the other. He remained in a darkened room for three days by the doctor’s orders. In crossexamination witness said that when he spoke to the defendant in the street, lie told him he would put his fist in his eye if he kept following them. The Mclsaacs’ having been examined, Dr. Huxtable deposed to having attended Fraser, after the alleged assault. There were bruises all over the face, one behind tho ear, and there was A cut, about an inch long, near the nose. Both eyes were blackened. His opinion at the time was, that the man had had a severe pounding in the face. By his orders, Fraser remained in his room for six days. On the left side of the face, some of the whiskers were pulled out. Other witnesses having bceii called, Mr Laishley addressed the Bench for the defence, and argued that the defendant had only acted in self-defence. James Farrell was then called, and stated that when he was addressed in the street he consented to apologise, if they could show him where he offended. At the office he sat down on a chair to hear Fraser’s complaint, but, before he knew what was intended, the complainant had thrown off his coat and hat, and had struck him in the mouth. Witness fell with the chair on the top of him, and his arm was out. He called out “ Police 1” and caught Fraser by the whiskers in raising himself from the ground. When he got up Fraser again struck at him, and a few blows followed. Fraser then said, “ That will do. I’ve had enough,” and there was an end of it. When witness got tip he took off his coat, and said, “ If that is your game, let us have it fair.” Fraser was not drunk. Witness had invited him down to the office because he did not care to argue with him in a crowd. Ho had been in the force 36 years. The magistrate held the case proved; and inflicted a penalty of £5 and costs. In reply to Mr Laishley, Mr Kenrick said he thought the penalty ho had flictod would fully meet the ends of justice, and if enquiry were made of him, he would be prepared to state so. In reference to this ease, which has caused no small amount of talk, the Court obviously did not believe Farrell.