NEWTON LARRIKINS ATTACK CONSTABLE

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 393, 29 June 1928, Page 13

NEWTON LARRIKINS ATTACK CONSTABLE

ANZAC DAY FRACAS CORRECTION RESENTED When a constable on plain clothes duty in Karangahape Road on Anzac Day had cause to reprimand a larrikin, he was attacked by four youths. When another constable came to his assistance, his nose was bleeding and his lips were bruised. Stinging comment on the conduct of tho youths was made when they appeared before Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., at the Police Court to-day. The accused were: George Waldron, Jack Charlton Kelly, George Kelly and Claude Howard Manning. Waldren was charged with using indecent language, and the other three with obstructing a police officer. Constable T. 1). Elms said he was on plain clothes duty, attempting to get evidence against youths interfering with telephone cabinets. He saw a party of live youths making remarks to three girls, and when witness saw tho girls go to a telephone cabinet he followed them because the youths had raced toward the cabinet. When witness got to the cabinet the girls were gone, but one youth was inside the cabinet, and Waldren was outside in a listening attitude. Witness warned him about this conduct, and Waldren asked him who ho was. Witness replied that ho was a constable, and Waldren used indecent language in reply. ARREST RESISTED “I then arrested him,” said the constable, ’but h© struggled, and I had to throw him on the street. While I attempted to handcuff him, the other three youths dragged him free.” Tho constable went on to say that when he made another attempt at the arrest, on© of the youths said: get to him,” and he was then attacked by the four youths. Constable Hinds, who relieved Constable Elms, said that accused were under the influence of liquor. “I see,” said the magistrate, “they were drunk and full of Dutch courage. When corrected by a custodian of the peace the four of them were brave enough to tackle one man. “It’s only their age.” he said, “that prevents me sending them straight up to prison.” Each of the accused was fined £5, and an application for the suppression of their names was refused.