"MOVE ON."

Auckland Star, Volume XXIV, Issue 91, 19 April 1893, Page 5

"MOVE ON."

LOITERING IN QUEE2.-STREET.

A POLICE COURT CASE

AT tho Police Courb thi* morning, before Dr. Giles, R.M., Ernest Forbes was charged that on tho 10th April, at Auckland, ho did, by loitering, encumber a public pavement, to wit Queen-street, within the bOl'OUgll of Auckland, to tbo inconvonionce of persons passing up and down tho said pavement, and after having boon requested by a constabio to move on and censo such loitering, contrary to bye-law No. 5 of the Auckland Borough Council. Mr S. Hesketh, for the defendant, pleaded not guilty. Mr Theo. Cooper appeared on behnli of tho prosecution. The Court was crowded with spectator?. In opening the caso for the pouco Mr Cooper said' that defendant ond another person was standing near the South British Insurance Company comer a littlo _ after half-past four on the 10th April. There was a great stream of traffic ab tho time Constable Quirko asked tho defendant to " move on," but he declined to do so. Defendanb certainly did move his ieot a fow inches, but ib was practically a defiance of bhe police. There was a greab stream of traffic at the time, and people were inconvenienced through defendant's conduct. It was only the constable's uniform that protected him from an assault. Subsequently defendanb refused to givo his name to the constable. Had he done so an unseemly occurrence would have been avoided. Two J.P.s, Messrs Roes George and Walker followed defendant to the watch • house. Defendant would havo probably given his name, which he subsequently did, had ib not been for L'mproper representations of these J.P.s who should have known better. lipomas Quirko deposed that hs was on duty . n Queen-street on the afternoon in question- about half-past four o'clock. Accused was ..banding nearly in the centro of the footpath, at the corner of Queen and Shortl&nd streets, with another gentleman. Thoy were causing inconvenience t;o traffic and ho noticed people walking right round him. Witness asked the defendant to stand aside as he was obstructing the footpath, but he took no notice. Wiuiess asked him a second time and said "move on do not obstruct the footpath. _ lie replied "your uniform is speaking; not you." The gentleman who was with bho defendanb moved aside. Witness said "I expected better conduct from a man of your appearance than to interfere with a policeman for doing what he is paid to do " He replied, " Cut that, it ia a a old yarn." * Witness asked the accused mere than once for his name and address, bub he refused. Witness then told i.im to come to the police station. Hy refused, and witness placed his hand UPO.- the collar of his coat and lad him to fc li9 station. In Vulcan Lane they were iou.ed by two Justices of the Peace. At the Police Station defendant eventually r,'ave bis name. Sergeant Gamble asked defendant at tho Police Station why he had not given hie name previously. He replied it was becaUSO the constable spoke to him. Defendant aid nob give his name till Serjeant Gamble threatened to lock him up. The defendanb was certainly inconveniencing persons winking up and down QueenSt By 'Mr Hesketh : The information was kid upon April 15th. Witness received a letter demanding an apology upon the previous day, but before he saw its contents he was ordered to lay the information. Mr Cooper said that tne Sergeants written instructions to lay the information were dated April 13th. Cross-examination continued : lie naa been stationed in Auckland about eight months. Defendant was standing some six or seven feet from tho footpath. \_r Hesketh pressed wituoss to say whether he arrested the defendant. _ Witness: I took him to the station by the collar of the coat. Mr Hesketh : Was ib an arrest? Witness : I told you whab I did. Dr .Giles said he did not know why the wibness- should be pressed to answer the question, . ~ -j n f u »ther answer to a question by Air Heskebh, witness said : I do nob know whether V. '«'as an arrest or not. Serireanb Gamble deposed tbat he was in h:s room ab the station and remembered being sent for'•<» the afternoon in question. Thee were a" number of constables in the ' guard ro ora and great contusion Constable Qui.vke told witness ..bat defendant had been obstructing the footpath in Queen-st. "Eot and refused to give his namo. _J r Ret« George interfered, und said "You've made him a prisoner; you must lock him up.." Constaole Quirke said bo did not arrest him.. Afterwards Id George said "I am a justice ot the peace and so is Mr Walker, and we will Le fair play at the Court." J. .toe., told Messrs Rees and George if they did not behave themselves he would have to lock both ot them up. Defendanb said he ; had refused to give bis name, as he had done nothing wrong. Afterwards defendart admitted to witness that he was stand- • incr in the centre of the footpath. Witness , asked defendant .for his name, when Mr George again interfered, _ and said that defendant had already given his name ! Witness ordered Messrs George and ; Walter out, and defendant was allowed to lao Later on, .wSmm caw Mr George, who asked him in coma and have a drink Ho wanted the matter to be dropped. Witness told him thab no would represent the matter to Inspector Hickson if defendanb came to tho station the next day and apologised. Defendanb did not dv so. The delay in issuing the summons «. owing to Inspec. or Hickson being out of town. Francis Burke, cab-dnver, deposed thathe saw defendant standing obstructing the foothpath on the afternoon in question. Henry Boyd, jeweller, in tho employ 01 iMr Howden, aaid thab he was inconvenienced by defendant standing en the footpath- , . T, William O'Brien, cab driver, generally corroborated tho evidence of Constaole 1 Quirke as to w.'oat took place when detenI d'ant was standing: on the footpath. ; Andrew Johnston, cab driver, also gave evidence as to what took pl&ce. Thomas Cor-beit, settler,- also gave evidence for the prosecution. Mr Hesketh for the defence said thab but for irritation on the part of the constable, and the fact of the constable putting hi. hand on defendant's Goat collar, the caso would no doubb have not come before the Court. He contended that the j by-law was never meant to apply to two I friends who stood in the street and spoke to each other for two or three minute-. H was done by mostly every one in their

everyday traffic. He said that it was _a common practice for two people to stand in the street and converse with each ofih er. Ib seemed to him that ev-ery one lost their heads ab tha time of tho occurrence. Ernest Colebrook Forben, the defendant, save evidence. He stated that he lived at liernueira, and was standing talking to Mr Chapman waiting for two friends who had gone up to Messrs A. Clark and Sons' in ■ Shortland-street. Tbe constable came up in a cool manner, and asked him to move on. He took no notice. The only remark ,he made to the constable was that ho was ! presuming on his uniform. The constable I 3poke to bun a second time, and asked bim for his name and address, and he I gave it to him there and then. [shortly afterwards the constable without I saying another word seized him by the collar and took him to the police station. When in Vulcan Lane wiuness met Mr (CONTINUED ON PAGE S.)