MOUNT EDEN GAOL CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXV, Issue 180, 29 July 1904, Page 2

MOUNT EDEN GAOL CASE.

ACTION FOS ; DAMAGES.

COURT PROCEEDINGS.

Mr Kettle, S.M., yesterday afternoon continued the hearing of the action of Leonard Mpntifiore Jacobs (alias Jay) for £100 damages from Warder James O"l!eilly for ah alleged assault in the .Mount Eden. Gaol grounds, where the plaintiff was on remand awaiting trial in the Supreme Court.

The plaintiff Jay, continuing hia evidence, said that Warders Duneen, Sweet, Hamilton, Gideon and Prendergast were present during the photographing incident. When O'Reilly was putting the figure-of-eigiit liandcufl'a upon him, he snouted out, "'This is hurting mc." O'Reilly said, "That's what we are putting them on you for." The handcuffs were too small, and being rigid they hurt him. He did not resist. The photographer, Theophi lus Fairs, adviaed him to have his photograph taken, but witness told Fairs to mind his own business. O'Reilly told him to follow the photographer across the yard, and he started to do so. When they got near the sentry box O'Keilly seized him by the shoulders and the seat of the trousers and butted him in the back with his knees. Witness gave him no cause to do this. He protested, but O'Reilly ordered him to go on, and handled him so roughly that they were soon running together down the hill. Finally they reached the chair, into which he alighted with a good bump.

Hamilton, Duneen and Sweet stood near the chair. Prendergaat was at the gate some distance away. Two boys working near the office, named Ruddell and Sidenham, were also within sight. O'Reilly stood behind him holding him by the hair with one hand and by the neck with the other. Witness was moving hia head about to dodge the camera, which was being held ready by the photographer. O'Reilly being baffled, took witness by the scruff of the neck and punched him severely with his clenched fist on the jaw and other parts of the face. White this was happening he (witness) was telling O'Reilly what he thought of him. He asked, "Do you call yourself a man? You are not worthy of the name of a man. You're a I'd show you if you would treat mc like this if I had these cuffs off."

Mr Lundon: Did you use any bad language or call him any names before he struck you?— Witness: No.

Did you remain cool?—No worked up to a high pitch then Did O'Reilly at any time have both hands on your hair?— Yea.

I was

What doing?—Jagging v my hair. Witness added that one of the wardere said, "Stop it, James," but O'Reilly did not stop. Witness then called to the other warder, "Surely you will not stand by and see a man treated like this." Hamilton then came between them, and O'Reil'ly said, "I know you sympathise with the prisoner." Hamilton said, "If there aren't enough here to take his photograph you are not fit to wear the uniform." Witness then stood ut> and

turned his back to the camera. O'Reilly took him by the shoulders and legs and \ put him back into the chair, and: then tried to hold his head in position. > Finall.v the photographer said it was useless to hold him any longer, as he had used ut> all the plates. He waa never struck after Hamilton interfered. After tftiis witness continued to call O'Reilly Names. Mr Kettle: What did you call him? — Witness: I think I called him everything but &i gentleman. Witness said he was bleeding on the > wrist when Vhe -handcuffs were removed. Soon after four o'clock, when he was to be locked for the night, he applied to-the cell waVder for permission to see the governor lay a complaint, but he did not see the Governor of the gaol that night. Next mprning he was marching out at the head< of a line of prisoners, when O'Reilly to/Id him to fall out. He asked 'Reilly ho\w he ex'peeted him to obey after the way he had treated him. O'Reilly then lifted his baton, but witness dodged out of the way. One of the prisoners said, "Strike the man, if you dare." An hour later, about 8 o'clock, •••he saw the governor in the office. O'Reilly was there also. Before he (witness) had time t>o speak the Governor charged him with using obscpne lan- t guage and resisting. He pleaded guilty to using abusive language, butnot guilty to resisting. Mr Severne (the governor) turned to O'Reilly and asked if he had any evidence. O'Reilly nuid witness had called him "a calf." Witness askrd Mr Severne to put his name on the book Ito see the Minister of Jueitiee ns he hid a complaint to make against O'Reilly for

assault. His Worship: Was the Minister in Auckland then?— Witness: I don't know.

Did you see him?— No. The govprnor refused to put my name dow*n. and said I should see a justice soon enough. His Worship asked Mr Lirndon why this evidPTrce* was baing called. Mr LimdoTi: To meet the sraggestion thnt no complaint was made. Witness, continuing, said he saw two justices in company with O'Reilly "some time later, and he was agiin cbarsrfwj with obscene

language and resisting;. Witness mad? the same reply as before. A book was obtained, from which n clause was read to the effect that' a prisoner on entering the gaol could be nhotoijraphed with the consent of the officers jin charge. Witness replied that this did not apnlv to a prisoner while on remand- One of them said. "What do you lcWw about the law?" Witness replied, "If T don't know it is your place to give ntf justice. If T don't get it. I'll get the biggest bar of iron T can lay hold of wlhpn T get out and deal it out to'O'Reillv .if T don't g°t satisfaction." He was remanded, and subspouenflv it was promised that a letter of his complaining of hi* treatment should be forwarded to the Minister of Justice, who wis then in Auckland to welcome Lord PlunVet. Witness never received nuv reply to this. He shewed Mr Kettle his wrist, which he? sain* stil 1 bore a scar. On the morning following the assault he saw a doctor for an iniurerl Ips\ but althnnerh bis Wrier wis rendncrort up he did not show it to th= doctor because several wor<Ws were with him and he knew ft wo"1d he unless to m*>ke a corfinlnmt. There wer° humus on his face, but h n hid no cfnnor-tu-niry to seetherri .in n lookin "-glass,- ; Crhss-pvn'TTiined by Mr Martin: Witn_ss be wns 10 vpirc nf age,. and came pvpr from Victorii in IW\ A:lonopti.rin os +o -tvh° f her b» h*»d nr°h°OTi convicted was objected to by "MY T.nn'lon. Mr Lundon paid it was eoTvepivnbl" +1l ?+ +-he IjHjjti tp .tMs nv_-tj;on piWn* P.r^vd^e-Hic,-. e js en t»s casein the Su l__n-eme .Courts - ' --' : "-- ',

case.

His Worship said Mr Lundon could ask for an adjournment till after the case in the Supreme Court were dispoai of. Mr Lundon said it would be very inonvenient on account of the witnesses who were in attendance. His Worship: Do you say that is the reason ?

Mr Lundon: Yes, it is. His Worship: You, as solicitor for the plaintiff, must have known he would be cross-examined on these points. Mr Lundon suggested that the crossexamination on thie point should be deferred. Hi 3 Worship said the partial publication of the evidence might be very undesirable. Mr Martin said the plaintiff was not the only person to be considered. There was the defendant, Warder O'Reilly. His Worship asked Mr Martin what he would say to Mr Lundon's suggestion. Mr Martin said he could not consent. The plaintiff had chosen to bring them all there, and it would not be fair to his client that an adjournment should be made now. He never questioned witnesses for the purpose of insulting them, but because it was his duty. In this instance the case would turn almost entirely on the credibility of the witnesses. His Worship said Mr Lundon ought to have asked for an adjournment before the case wae begun. It would not be fair under the circumstances to. adjourn the case and allow only Jay's statement to go to the public. He must decline the adjournment and allow the cross-examination to proceed. Mr Martin then again asked the plaintiff if he had been convicted before. Witness replied that he was sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment for usin?

obscene language at Palmerston, and

nine months in Victoria for larceny as

a bailie.-Cross-examined as to the severity of the assault, plaintiff said he could not rememlber if his nose bled, because there

was no looking-glass, and he was too excited at the time. There was, how ever, blood on his clothes and on his

wrists. He did not complain to the doc tor because he was the gaol doctor,, and bethought it would be useless to com-

plain to him.

For the same reason he

did not ask the doctor to examine the bumps on his face and head. Mr Mar tin examined the witness minutely a a to the circumstances of the assault Witness said he considered O'Reilly'a ob jeet in pulling him about by the hah while he was sitting in the chair was to exhaust him. As to Mr Martin's suggestion that on the occasion when O'Reilly drew his baton he did so in fear' that Jay was going to attack him witness admitted that this havp been the case. In the interview with Mr Severne he could riot be sure whether he asked for the Minister of Justice 01 for the Visiting Justices, but he meant the latter. Mr Martin: Who was the first outside person you saw? —Mr Baume. ■ Did he come alone? —Yes. Who was the next? —Mr Lundon. Mr Kettle: Did you send for Mi Baume?—l really sent for Mr Lundon. but the person I sent went to Mr Baume by mistake. Had Mr Lundon appeared for you in the Court before ?—Yes. Mr Kettle: How did you send the message? —I wrote a letter to him. Mr Martin: Then how could it get to Mr Baume by mistake? —I refuse to answer that question. On what day did you send? —On Friday, a week after the assault. By whom did you send the letter?—ln the ordinary way on gaol notepaper. I also sent a message. By whom:—l refuse to answer that question. I am afraid I shall have to press it. Was it by a prisoner?—l refuse to an-

swer.

Mr Kettle: Was it before or after the letter? —The day before. ' Mr Martin: Was it sent through any one of the warders of the gaol* —I don't

want to say,

I must ask Your Worship to order him to answer the question. It will b? seen that there is, a direct conflict of testimony between certain officers of the gaol. Mr Kettle: Was it one of the ward ers? —I am not aware that one of the warders took it. Was it one of the prisoners?— Yes, it was one of the prisoners, but I don't want to tell his name.

Mr. Martin: If it was a, prisoner I tp, knpw anything further. Mr. Martin then asked: Is no* person going to bear part of the cost of these proceedings?— Witness: Yes. Who are they?—My father. Where is your father?—He is going to do it through another party. Where is your father?—ln London. How did he know? You have not cabled to him, I suppose?— Yes, I have. Who is his agent here, or hi 3 attorney? —My father cabled to Mr. Arthur Myers. Then Mr. Myers told you that your father is paying the cost of these proceedings,? —Yes. JSe had instructions to fight * f v "V " Is anybody else bearing a portion of the cost?— No. Did that cable refer to this case or the case in the Supreme Court?— Witness said he did not know, but he believed it referred to the present case. His cable to his father referred to this

Your father cabled back to Mr. Myers ?—Yea. And Mr. Myers and another gentleman came-and bailed you out?— Yes. Since you came out of gaol have you been in communication with any of the warders you have mentioned?— No. Not Hamilton?— Only when he was subpoenaed. Were you not at Onehunga on the day Dineen went away?— No. Have you been instrumental in getting things put into the papers about the affair? —If the reporters asked mc anything about it I told them. Have you given them statements about it?—lf they asked mc if it was correct I said "Yes." You know Hamilton has left the gaol?— Yes. Have you been helping to work up an agitation for him about it? —No. Do you not know that a political association is backing up Hamilton?—l have read so in the papers. Mr. Martin asked whether witness had not supplied information to the editor of one of'the weekly papers on the matter, and (witness replied in the affirmative. i ■-■'- •'.'• ■ Mr. Ma.rtirtV'You were photographed • in .Victoria, were you not? —Yes. -j What vas your objection to being photographed again here? —I was committed oni a charge I. was not guilty of, and I knew they had no right to do it, as I was not convicted. To Mr. Lundon: His father was a well-to-do ,ma nin business in England. . ,i\t this, stage the hearing was adjourned till this morning. I