Plaintiff Told To Answer Questions

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31069, 26 May 1966, Page 14

Plaintiff Told To Answer Questions

(A'cw Zealand Pre** As*ociatfon>

AUCKLAND, May 25.

Mr Justice Hardie Boys today warned a plaintiff that he would discharge the jury unless he answered questions properly put to him in cross-examination.

His Honour issued the warning when the plaintiff. John Patrick Blundell, aged 35. a wharf foreman, was giving evidence in the Supreme Court at Auckland.

Blundell, represented by Mr R. P. Smellie, is claiming £2OOO damages against the Attorney-General, sued in respect of the Police Department.

The defendant is represented by Mr G. M. Nicholson. Blundell alleges assault and false imprisonment by the police.

The defendant denies the allegations and alleges that if there was a false imprisonment, then there was reasonable and probable cause for such action.

In evidence, Blundell said he was walking in Queen street on September 17, 1964, with Miss Barbara Coles, when a man jumped on his back from behind. Blundell said he fell into the gutter and then carried the man on his back into Durham street. Blundell said the man did not say anything to him but told people who came to his assistance: “This is a police matter, get away.” Two constables arrived. One policeman said: “Let him go.” The man—a Mr Unsworth —let him go. Blundell said he told a policeman he wanted to go to his solicitor’s office. “I mentioned that I would like charges for assault against this man,” said Blundell. The constable pushed him against the wall and said: “You are going nowhere."

The constable said there was a warrant for his arrest. “I said there was no warrant for my arrest and this charge was ridiculous,” said Blundell.

Blundell said he was against the wall for 10 or 15 minutes. He felt embarrassed in front of the crowd. He was concerned about his name. “I felt that being arrested by the police, people would place a wrong interpretation on it,” he said. “I was made to look like a common criminal and I resented this.”

The constable “propelled” him towards a police car and he was taken to the Central police station.

Change Of Name In cross - examination Blundell told Mr Nicholson that Blundell was his correct name. He said he had used the surname Cunningham in 1963 and 1964. He said he changed his name because of adverse publicity he received in the newspapers over a charge against him. The charge heard in October. 1964 was dismissed. Blundell then changed his name to Cunningham. Mr Nicholson: Why? Blundell: For personal reasons I am not prepared to discuss in this Court. His Honour then warned Blundell that if he did not! answer the questions he would discharge the jury. In reply to the question) Blundell said his marriage had I broken up and he was going

to start afresh. He said Miss Coles’ parents may have called him Cunningham When he met them he did not tell them he was a married man.

The man who jumped on his back on September 17 had followed them down Queen street after. Blundell and Miss Coles had met the man with Mrs Coles. Mr Nicholson: And when he had hold of you, did he ask bystanders to go and get the police? Yes. And did this man allege there was a warrant out for you? Yes. And did he allege that there was a warrant concerning maintenance No. I suggest that the policeman asked you both to stay where you were until the police could sort the matter out? It most certainly wasn’t.

The hearing will continue tomorrow.