THE WHARF ASSAULT CASE

Greymouth Evening Star, 4 February 1910, Page 1

THE WHARF ASSAULT CASE

YESTERDAY'S SITTING

A NOMINAL FIXE rXFLICTED

The continuation of the hearing u I In' throe charges laid against Alfrei Gibbons by the police for assaultim ami obstructing James Brisbane an< Constablo Dunne was heard ai th. Court yesterday afternoon liv .Mr V Croi.ke, S.M., wlien the evidence u Mr K. R. Casey, draughtsman in tin Railway Engineer's Oflice at liivy mouth, who stated thai tin- plan pri, daced showed the position as wa< shown "ii the plan filed in the Su prome Court at Hukitika. A big fined hi 1872 had removed a great portion of the wharf opposite Richmond Quay together with an old wharf which wen not shown .hi the plan now in court. The measurements were taken from the centre between the two rails. I That meant that the land 6ft from the centre of the quarry line was in the possession of the Railway Dipaitmeut, ity as that was nut in his office, but he spoke under the auth uitv of th ■ Public Works Act. Section 194. To Mr Joyce. I!., hn.l clucked the .plan in Court with (lie Railway Department's mav some time a ■_'<>. There was mi line of demarcation between Richmond Quay and the i.ne , f the Quarry line. The width of Richmond Qu.-n at its junction with Johnston Street was 18 feet as sh.mn bv the plan. This included I lie footpath. Mr .lovce s,,l.mined thai the clause of |he Public Works Act was entirely in fa\nr of the conjenti, n i Iml the public had the use of the Kichtn I Quav all the time as i! had ivwr beep ,-l. sed and had be, n treat.-. las a publie tho,,,ie_difatv all the n Witness to the lllspeetof || h . P.ailwav Department had full control of all railways and the land mi which the railways wrc constructed. Th.it was the case all over the dominion. To the Magistrate Ne was not aware of anv regulation or staiufe whir!, provided for bind outside the six feet from the centre line bet we, n the line of rails being occupied by the I lepart incut, bin there was in,,, isioii lu-'de for having control of ■■!;•■ chain. Mr .lovce read the proclamation in which the Railwav authorities in 1872 not , nlv declared the line ~f th. ! iltevßrumi ■■• Railwav but included ! all the sections on Ridim n i Quav as I far as !;,,««„ Street Therefe.ro he I Imhi that the proclamation was had. I The visibl •cupalion was in i 1,.. ; hands . f tie- I'.or..ii_di Council the)-- | f,.re he held that the user eavo if as ! a public thoioll-hfai • up t.. the ~!;•,. j of the rails ami all ihe wi-Messes had proved thai Oibb. i>\ mail express !si i„„ a public 1h..r..u-hf-re by re.,. I ...n ~f thai us... The n..i- iisrh mav ! .bowed that Hi. hmond Quay . xfonded '■ ~, th.- river haul:. The Ma-isfrale said In should imf | dispos,. of this point riirh' off but '■ holild enside, his decision. Mr .lovce pointed out that the ]'„,,• i ~„.h had be.-,, in existence since 1868 ! .inc.. when Richmond Quav ha,l been a i.uhlie Ihorou difai'. ami had alwavs i.ee,| used as such. Therefore ho submit i.-d that Rrislane bad -v hd hi!,.,\ver in bavin-. Oihb. us arr."sl,.,j a,l! l„. should have done -.,-.. (~ warn him j? |,e tbonrbt h- was > respassiip; ..,,! th-y take hi. na and summ n him for trespass Hut hi ■ rase lav ;„ -he fact of this heiio- a public th-.r o„..|,far.. bv ns,. an.! that there was no h-ospnss and tberef. !• To i-lane ha.l .... aufhofitv t., rem, ■•> the hofs,- or lo order his arrest -v..., if Oibbons had 1.....,, ~„ lb, wharf itself. \s iv-arrled ■he assault on the Constable •her., was .„-,( a titth- of ovl.t. ne to show that Cibbons had ns=aul>.,l him and the in-n-,rmafmn should Ire. 1.-, n laid mill, r ,1,,. Crimes \c! as if anv assault had I „ made ~n a must able .it was an in dictable offence punishable by Iwo -. e.a i's' impris. .nuietif The .Tad strafe said Ibal the information was laid and. i the Police I Iff.'IOCS \,'i \ft ~■ a lei, -thv discussion between ihe Magistrate and air Jove the foi - „„ ,■ said that fr„m H.e facte before him he had no doubt lhat in (lie case ~f assaul'ioe Constable Pimm . defendant had bo-ti L'uilfv ~f a 'eebnical of fo hni the whole was .a verv small ! ~ ~„M | ;,s (here Wore other chafes j ... 1,., laid as a ■-,,.. action he did .ml j ,]. s i n . t,, -a, much but the p. lie mii-i j 1.. p,,,|.C<,,l Therefore he «'IP bo,Old I 1., 'r,,.,vicl . n thai ohaieo and would i i 1,,.. ,1, '. edanl l 'l Th, onestion of |,.„ 5 ,.- !,..,„■. ia-e,l il was shown that C.url .-sis ~-r.. not im-lmbd in lli-l i ,-lass ~f offem-c ami ih.-iv was only „n----i „jf,„ .... lie lad Nelson •-, (i(|,,| ... i ; |,is .-, and h- al!owo,l bin, M.o I, Uhl -■■ -,- - I,' d. ' iin nil VTr i: i MAI ' ' • Tie .hare a-taima William Pete I. Dunne ~f assault,ne Ufr.d liibbens in ,-, man,,, r which cans, d him h.idilv harm was then called ~n. Mr Joyce f..,- the ,„■ ution ami Mr .1. W. Ham an f.n the defence wlm plead, d Hot eililf. Mr .love i-xolained that h< had i |„ s| ~| Veliallle V.ilm .Sos win would 1...,f, lo !he uiailller iii which the Constable had acted I'owards Cib 1,,-.,. oil the oceiisi.ill ill IpleStiol). He desired lo Mi- thai the sa "jastioii of the hostility of th-- rrowd to the police ~. rally had been raised mi the pre vioiis cases but he wished his Wor ship t,, understand and he shoiiid bring plenty ot proof to show thai i" was uoi lili the brutal grip was used b\ the Constable on Cibbeiis that any In >l ilil v had been displa-., i by tun ~n, ami then n onlv was shown u. . oi,s,-,pi, in-,- of the rough treatment Cibbeiis h,-,,| beep subjected 10. 11, Into mad.- these rhar.es indictable ill or der that. lh,v might be r- corded in lie- Court and they would be ul furth a ,is ■ in any Supreme < 'oil ,i act no thai wa.s taken. I he evid nee would show that undue violence had been

lie called lie- defendant, Alfred Oib bent., who repeated his evidence in cliiet in the former cases. T!,.- hearing was resumed ihis mum m.j. bul up to tb. lurid adjournment llm evidence hud been the huuie as in the last case.