The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1905.

Evening Star, Issue 12626, 4 October 1905, Page 4

The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1905.

It is hardly necessary for us to say that we are reluctant to comment V Doubtful adversely on judicial deciDselaion. sons, whether they be those of the lower or the higher Courts; but to all rules these are exceptions, and we have t£e less hesitancy in criticising a judgment gtren in the Police Court because the cases most frequently dealt with there M not concerned with statutory law and precedent so much as with evidence, on which, though opinions may reasonably differ, the layman is at as competent to speak as are the occupants of the Bench. InfitaMinew in point wfll deobttcs»4>ecar to many of-oorTeaders.

and whilst few will question the integrity and honesty of magisterial or even, judicial decisions, their justice and equity may sometimes be open to fair comment. An illustrative case was, we think, furnished yesterday in the City Police Court. John Fitspatrick, a young man, was found guilty of having supplied a bottle of beer to a prohibited person (John H. W. Rhodes) on August 25 last, and' was fined £5 and costs. But, unfortunately, the punishment meted out to Fitzpatrick does not end here. Fitspatrick is a letter-carrier in the Post Office, and as a result of the case in which he figured yesterday he may be dismissed from the Service; in any event be will be called upon for an explanation of his action, which may entail further penalty on him. We think we are justified ia assuming that Fitzpatrick would not be in the Post Office unless his character and conduct were good, and we believe that a knowledge of the evidence in the possession and at the command of the police would lead the average individual to regard with extreme suspicion the testimony of Rhodes. What are the facts of the case as detailed in the Police Court yesterday? It was not disputed that Rhodes was creating a disturbance in the Excelsior Hotel; that the proprietor had gone for a policeman ; that a waitress had paid Rhodes's cab fare, and asked Fitzpatrick to take him home; that Fitzpatrick tried to do so, but found, 3 s many men iu a like position have done, that there is no more obstinate and mulish creature than a half-drunken mau ; and uiat in order to pacify him he went at Rhodes's request, purchased, and paid for out of his own pocket a bottle of beer. Herein Fitzpatrick erred. Had he left Rhodes t» «!eep in the gutter or to seek that protection and shelter which were ultimately his, all would have been well. But he did what he was asked, only to find that his well-meant efforts did not get Rhodes home, but, on the contrary, that bo (Fitzpatrick) had got himself into trouble. Rhodes, with that high sense of honor and delicacy of feeling that are characteristic of his class, informed the police that Fitzpatrick had bought him drink, and thereby helped to drag him from the paths' of sobriety and virtue that by the help of a prohibition order he was endeavoring to keep. The offence, therefore, with which Fitzpatrick was charged was procuring drink for a prohibited person, and of this latter fact Fitzpatrick swore he was not aware. Reduced to its lowest limits, the question for the Bench was simple, resolving itself into cae of credibility. Was Fitzpatrick lying or was Rhodes? There is nothing in the evidence, it seems to us, to show that Fitzpatrick's story was untrustworthy, and even had there heerr a doubt as to his knowledge i f tho fact that a prohibition order was in force against Rhodes, then, we snbmit, the antecedents and character of the accuser should have been fully weighed as against those of the accused. His Worship is reported to have said that the conduct of tbe accused was unsatisfactory ; "he could not xmderstand it at all." We cannot follow this line of reasoning. All who have attempted to manage, in the interests of peace and decency, a semi or wholly drunken man will have no difficulty in understanding Fitzpatrick's conduct. He may have been foolish—the result of yesterday's proceedings showed that he was—but granting that he ought to hove known tbe danger of aid--ing a drunken mart, and assuming bo did know the man was a prohibited person, He sought by the best means he knew to get and extremely obstreperous and weak person to his home in order to keep him out erf mischief, and for doing so he has been dragged into a police court, told that" his conduct was unsatisfactory, has been fined £5 and costs, and m all probability will have to face a departmental inquiry. The lesson is undeniably a dear one.