A FOOTBALL SEQUEL.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 3032, 31 October 1908, Page 4

A FOOTBALL SEQUEL.

COSTS AGAINST A POLICEMAN.' AN INTERESTING POINT. t I An echo from the British v. Wairarapa and Bush Districts football match was heard in banco by Mr Justice Cooper yesterday, says the "Post," during the progress of the case Police-sergeant Nathaniel Miller (appellant) for whom Mr Herdmann appeared, against James Joseph Kennedv (respondent), represented by Mr Grpy. This was an appeal from a judgment of the district judge at Masterton so far as it concerned a question «>f costs. An action was tried before District Judcre Hasplden and a jury i" fhfi District Cn-irt at Masterton on 29th August, 1908, in which Kennedy, a fprmpr hy occupation, sded Sergeant MilW, of Masterton, for assault. The facts were that the plaintiff took a seat in a grandstand on the Masterton Agricultural and Pastoral Pocfctv's grounds on the occasion of the Bn'MVh foothill match on 23rd May, 1908. Some of the Rugby ILiion officials objected to presence of plaintiff in tbnt seat, which, thev said, was reserved, ard they instructed defendant to eject him from the place. Th*> sfrgeart proceeded to do so. and the plaintiff's case was that he was wrongfully removed and subjected to unnecessary force. The defendant contended that the plaintiff was under the influence of liauor, that he was a trespasser, and that no more force was used than was necessary for the purpose of removing him. In answer to issues pwt to them the jury found that the plaintiff was not in a state of drunkenness sufficient to justify his removal from the stand or to justify his arrest for drunkenness; that the plaintiff had reasonable notifce that the seat was reserved; that the defendant did use unnecessary force in removing him, and gave a verdict for £5 damages. Upon the application of the plaintiff's counsel, the district judge gave judgment for £S costs, and he certified that the actio* was a proner one to be brought in Ofb District Court. The defendant now appealed from the judgment as to costs upon the ground that by section 16 of the Police Force Act, 1886, no plaintiff who obtained judgment in an action against a police officer, acting in the execution of that Act, should recover his cost unless the judge, before whom the trial was made, .should certify his approbation of the action and of the verdict. It was admitted that no application had been made to the judge at the trial for such a certificate, and the question to be determined now was whether such a certificate was necessary, and if it were whether an application for it could not now be made. His Honor, after hearing the argument, said he would look into the point taken by the plaintiff, that the sergeant was not acting in pursuance of any authority in what he did, and was therefore not entitled to notice of action, in whici case the certificate of the judge vam tried the case was not required. The point was an important one, and it was necessary for him to lay down a principle. If he came to the conclusion that the certificate of tha district judge was necessary, he would , discharge the judgment so far as the costs were concerned, and remit the case back to the district judge, with a direction to hear and consider an application for the necessary certificate.