The Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1886. POLICE PERSECUTION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1464, 6 February 1886, Page 2

The Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1886. POLICE PERSECUTION.

It ie our custom not to comment upon the actions of public officers mil css we cannot possibly avoid it., because we recognise that they have much to contend with, and that a good deal of latitude might to bo allowed to them, The extraordinary conduct of the Temuka police, however, hag at last forced upon us the necessity of takim; cognisance of their actions. To allow such a series of outrageous blunders as have characterised their conduct for some time past to go unnoticed would amount to a dereliction of the duty we owe to the public. We have seen them prefer a charge against a man who sought to obtain a hotel license, which charge was proved, on the sworn testimony of a large number of our most respectable fellow-citizens, to be unfounded. "What could he more objectionable than this? What can that man who was thus persecuted think but that he was outrageously ilitreatod. We have also seen another man dragged out of his trap as he was on his way hotre, and his children placed in danger, for no other offence than that he coughed in the hearing of the policeman who arrested him. i he policeman accused him of being drunk, but a witness holding a very responsible position, backed up by further testimony, swore he was not, and the Magistrate believed bun, and dismissed the case without even hearing what the constable had to say. Could anything be more disgraceful than this? Again, a breach of the peace was committed in the most public place in Temuka, and he police—instead of prosecuting the parties—gave one of them the hint that unless one of them prosecuted the other the police won id initiate proceedings against them. This is not a whit less scsodalou* than the other instances of police incompetency already referred to. It was outrageously unjust to give one side such an advantage over the other, and we have it on the sworn testimony of one of the patties that such was the case. In this instance the police neglected their duty by not prosecuting. They ought to have laid an information forthwith instead of going about cackling as to what they intended to do—and the fact that one of the pai ties took the hint and prosecuted did not relieve the police of their duty. The law Pad be< n outraged ; a breach of the peace had been committed ; their duty was clear, and to neglect that duty because of the position of the persons involved was scandalous in the extreme. Wo allowed these things, and many otheis, So pass unnoticed, in the vain hope tbat a few sjcL blunders would ■ each the police to exercise some discretion in carrying out their duties, but they seem to go from bad to worse, The recent arrest of Mr 11. F. Harte tiives proof that it is hopeless to expect either common sense or even a knowledge of the rudimen's of their duties from the police of Temuka, Mr Harte was well known in the town as a householder and a man of family ; be committed no crime, except that he accidentally cut bits off the tails of three or four cows, out of twenty cows whose tails ho had been instructed to clip : yet for this he was followed to his house «nd arrested without either warrant or summons being issued. If a man is charged with murder a warrant is issued for his apprehension : but in this case the police took upon themselves to arrest without any such authority. The lad is, the police acted under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1880, which has been repealed. When the case was brought before Mr Gray, this was the Act they submitted to the Bench. Is not this nice ? Is it not the height of incompetency that the police should act under a statute that has been repealed ? The Cruelty to Animals Act has been repealed, but its provisions have in the main been incorporated with the Police Offences Ad, under which Act the case was brought; before the Resident Magistrate. With regard to cruelty to animals, Section 11 of the Police Offences Act says—“ / ny constable upon his own view thereof, shall, or upon the complaint of any other person who shall declare his or her name and place of abode to the said constable, may, take such offender into custody.” This is very plain. If a policeman sees an act of act of cruelty committed be must arrest. The word « shall ” makes it imperative. When, however, the constable does not see it, but is told of it by another, the word shall ” is altered to “ may,” which undoubtedly gives him discretionary power as to whether he shall arrest or summon, If Mr Harie had been a stranger passing through Temuka, ami uot likely to be found next morning, it would have been right to arrest him ; but, being a resident, to summon bun was the proper course, the concluding portion of the seme section of the Act even provides for this. Ii cay* —“ Any Justice may issue a warrant for the apprehension of any person charged with any offence under the lust aforesaid sections whenever good ground for doing so will be stated on oath before such Justice.” Section 9 says that every information must be laid within <>ne month. It is evident, therefore, that the police had power to lay an information instead of arresting, yet Constable Morton awore that to arrest was the proper gjode of proceeding. If so, why are provisions made for laying an information ? But tbs begt pf }t

was that the police were in a fog from beginning (o end. By referring to (ho section abnre quoted it will be seen that the police must see the offence committed, or else some person who gives bis or her name and place of abode must tell them that he or she has seen it. In this case the police did not see the offence committed, and no one told them that they saw it committed. The constable only heard some parlies, whom he said he did not know, talking about it. He went home and to Id his cock-and-bull story to his superior, who ordered him to arrest, while he himself went skulking round the yard looking for the tails. Handy Andy could not have gone about the business in a more slovenly way. Willi regard to the decision of the Resident Magistrate, ho was, like Goldsmith’s friend, “ whose conduct was right and his argument wrong.” He was right in dismissing the case, but the reason be gave for doing so was wrong. He dismissed it because there was no malice shown. If malice were shown he would have bo-n bound to dismiss it, for then it would hare been an indictable offence, instead of being an offence against a statute. If he had said that the police had failed to prove their case—for they did, excepting the admissions made by Mr Harle himself, who, however, pleaded not guilty—and that the cruelly wag the result of an accident, he would have been right. However, that is neither here nor there. With regard to whether the police had power to accept bail, Section 222 of the Justices of the Peace Act says that if “ a person liable to be summarily convicted shall be brought without the warrant of a Justice into custody, the constable may take the recognisance of such person wither without sureties, conditional on that be shall appear before a Justice not later than seven days’” Mr Harte was liable to be sutnmarliy convicted for the offence with which he was charged, and if the police acted under the above clause no one would have accused them of having done wrong. Ihe whole case betrays incompetence and ignorance of duty on the part of the police. They appear to have acted on impulse, without the slightest regard as to consequences. It is no wonder they do so when blunder after blunder is overlooked, and, like the monkeys of Benares, they are allowed to play whatever pranks they please with impunity. How long is this going to last? Who knows who will be the next victim of their capiicinusness ? The metier is very serious ; it is not comfortable to feel uncertain as to the moment one may find oneself in trouble, and consequently we think that a p< tition should bo signed and forwarded to the Minister of Justice praying for the removal of the causa of all this extra ordinaey conduct.