Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

A STREET DISTURBANCE AND THE SEQUEL.

The sequel to the disturbance in Queen street on Tuesday night was the preferment of charges at the Police Court, yesterday morning, against two young men, named John Watson and Arthur Jones. The Court was crowded with spectators, and the Bench was occupied by Messrs E. G. Eton and T. Wagg, J's.P. The case of Watson was dealt with first, and he was charged with drunkenness and resisting the police in the execution of their duty.

Mr C. A. Pownall appeared for accused.

; Sergeant Miller stated in his evion the night in question he saw accused, who was the worse for drink. He spoke to him and tried to ascertain where he was going to sleep, but getting no reply he decided in the man's own interest to lock him up. Accused resisted, and in the meantime a* crowd which had gathered commenced hooting. As a result accused became very violent. Constable Dunn came to witness' assistance, and the accused, struggling violently, was lodged in the lock-up. By Mr Pownall: Accused was ataggering along the road, but was not interfering with anyone. Accused may not have known who he (Sergeant Miller) was. as he was in plain clothes.

Constable McGregor said he was present when accused was brought to the station, and when asked to affix his signature stated he was too drunk to do so. Accused was in a very excited state.

Constable Dunn gave evidence as to accused's condition, and violence while being arrested. This concluded the case for the

prosecution. John Watson said he arrived a stranger in town on the day in question, and had about three or four drinks. During the evening he was standing in the street, when some one in plain clothes came up and spoke to him. After some questioning the man said he had better go along with him. The next thing he knew was that he was being dragged along the street, and he naturally resisted. By Sergeant Miller: He was not hanging on to a verandah post at the time of his arrest. Austin Weller gave evidence as to seeing accused at the time of his arrest. He was struggling on the ground with the police. | s This concluded the evidence. t Sergeant Miller stated that he would not press the charge of resistance, as accused may have been at a disadvantage. The Bench imposed a fine of ss, in default 24 hours for the charge of drunkenness.

INCITING TO RESIST. In connection with the previous case Arthur Jones was charged with inciting prisoner to resist the police in the execution of their duty. Mr C. A. Pownall appeared for accused, who pleaded not guilty. Sergeant Millet stated that in connection with the previous case a large crowd gathered round while the arrest was being effected and hooted. The effect of the hooting caused Watson to violently resist being arrested. Personally, he did see Jones hooting. Constable McGregor stated that on the night in question he heard hooting and shouting in the direction of the police station, Jones was makine a noise with others. He cautioned him to be quiet, and subsequently arrested him. Arthur Jones said he was in ths crowd during the disturbance, but did not hoot or shout. He was merely talking and laughing with a mate, who was with him.

By Sergeant Miller: He did not make use of the word "mongrel." The police sorted him out from the crowd because he was known to them. Austin Weller said he was a witness of the disturbance, but did not see Jones hooting. Further evidence given by Herbert Jones and P. Campbell, who were in accused's company at the tim?, was to the effect that Jones was not hooting, but si-nply laughing and talking. Mr Pownall pointed out that hooting was not an offence. If Jones was hooting, then they would have to prove that accused's action incited the prisoner to resist the police. Sergeant Miller said it was impossible to effect an arrest of every person who had hooted. This concluded the case, and the Bench imposed a fine of 40s, in default 14 days' imprisonment. Accused was allowed until 2 o'clock in order to pay the fine.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WAG19090408.2.15

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 3158, 8 April 1909, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
709

A STREET DISTURBANCE AND THE SEQUEL. Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 3158, 8 April 1909, Page 5

A STREET DISTURBANCE AND THE SEQUEL. Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 3158, 8 April 1909, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert