SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST POLICE CONSTABLE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2122, 22 February 1908, Page 1

SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST POLICE CONSTABLE.

ALLEGED ASSAULT ON AN OLD MAN. A LENGTHY HEARING. JUDGMENT RESERVED. The Courtliou.se was crowded yesterday. when Constable John i homes Irwin was brought forward on a charge of having on January 20th assaulted one Robert Meßretney, at Wuer. nga-a-hika. Defendant was represented by Air. \V L. Rook, with him Mr. 11. Bright, and }:.r. E. J. Clirisp, with him Mr. T. Al. ton Coleman, appeared lor informant. . Before the charge was read the S.M. announced that he had- been .subpu 'taed by tho defence, lie asked Air. I’.eea what evidence it was desired he should give. Mr. Rees said that it was only desired ibe able to call on his Worship

to pr. duco his notes in the case in which the present informant was charged with drunkenness if any of the witnesses departed from the versions

given on that occasion. . Tho S.M. said ho did not think there was anv necessity for him to vacate the Bench.. Ho had no material evidence to offer in flic present ease. CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION. Mr. Coleman opened shortly lor tho prosecution, outlining the direction in which the evidence would go IN FOR AIA N T’S EVI DENCE.

Robert Meßretney, the informant, said ho was asleep in the taproom pi tho AVaeronga-a-hika Hotel early in the afternoon of January 20th. It was a very hot day. Was silting with one leg over the other in a chair. Was awakened by somebody striking him a number of blows with a stick or whip. Did not then know who had struck him, hut now knew it to bo defendant, who was in plain clothes. Got up on his feet to go out of tho house. Made a step or two, but defendant caught him by the neck and tho arm. Defendant jerked him onco or twice, and ho 101 l on his hands and knees. Got up again, defendant still holding him. Defendant jerked him backwards and forwards a few times, and then put his knee in the small of liis back. Was then jerked to tho front door, where his feet were pushed from under him, and lio was thrown out into tho road on the back of his head Remembered nothing more until he was part of his way home. Was stunned by tho fall. Before lie entered the taproom had no bruises or marks on his. body. In the evening his wife examined his body and found two or throe bruises from tho whip on tho body and one on the thigh. Was black from the knee to tho toes on the right log. Tho injuries did not confine him to his bod, but he was in pain for ten days aftori wards. The leg swelled. The right instep still had some numbness. After leaving Beatson. bad a mile to go before he reached home. From tho time of leaving Beatson until the examination was made, did not fall down or do anything to cause the bruises. Was in his trousers and shirt in tho taproom, both being quite sound. When ho got home the shirt was badly torn, and the back seam of tho- trousers was burst open. Produced the shirt. Oil the day in question had two or three nips of sherry and water. Had the drinks at intervals from about 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Had lunch about 1 p.m. In the presence of defendant did not do anything to provoke an assault. Was 67 years of age.—By Air. Rees: Was quite sober. Heard Stephen Priestly say something when he awoke, but could not say what he said. Defendant did not hit him after he awoke. Did not remonstrate with defendant, nor did ■Priestly. Did not remonstrate going down tho passage. Did not fall out of the hotel. At the time did not complain to anybody but his wife regarding the treatment received. Did not complain to the constable who served the summons on a charge of drunkenness. After his wife the first person ho complained to was his counsel. Would not say lie was unconscious after being thrown out, but bo could remember nothing of what happened then. Was about six chains away from the hotel when ho recovered and found himself in the company of Beatson. Laid the present infor-, mation on the day after he had been found guilty of drunkenness. D.id not lay tho present information earlier because he wished to give defendant scope. AVoro the shirt produced on his way home. Attributed the bruises on his shoulders, thigh, artl instep to blows from defendant’s whip. There was a bruise on the back of his bead where lie was thrown into the road. That night or tho following night went to see Priestly to make inquiries. Priestly said lie would givo evidence if witness proceeded against defendant. Also saw Colebrook and Beatson before the charge of drunkenness was tried. Did not knew that Colebrook had seen the affair, blit heard that night that he had seen it. Did not give evidence on liis own behalf at the hearing of tho charge of drunkenness. Could not say that ho had any drink on January 19tli. It was untrue to say that he dran'k three decanters of sherry on that day.-—Re-oxamined: Ono sleeve of the shirt was torn off by defendant. INSIDE THE HOTEL.

Stophen Priestly, lately barman at the Waerenga-a-hika Hotel, said that on January 20th he was in charge of the bar during the day. After lunch informant had a drink of slierrv and water, and before lunch two similar drinks. Saw defendant at the hotel between 2 and 3 p.m. Witness was in the bar, and Meßretuey was sitting- in ho taproom. When defendant came in he pointed to informant, and asked, • “What’s this here?” Witness replied, “lie’s having a sloeep.” Defendant then sat down in a chair next to informant. He had a riding crop in liis hand, and struck informant three blows on the shoulder:; with the lash end, three blows on the thigh, and three across the instep. Informant then woke up. The blows were all fairly heavy. When informant woke, witness told liim that a policeman wanted to sneak to him. Informant rose and made two steps out of the taproom. Defendant caught him from behind by the shoulder and pushed him out. In the passage informant was forced on his hands and knees. Informant rose, and defendant continued pushing him along the passage. At the corner of the passage where it goes out to the front door saw defendant with his knee in the small of informant’s back. It was about loft from the corner to the front door, and tho distanco was about the same from the taproom door to the corner. Was standing in the bar, and could see nothing after the parties turned the corner. Did not see informant give defendant any provocation.—By Mr. Rees: The blows were struck one after the other in rapid - succession. Did not remember remonstrating with defendant regirding his treatment of informant. Did not remember saying when defendant came in first that informant was “sliickor.” Could not- remember telling defendant that lie was glad he had come along, but might liuvo said so. Defendant did not say to witness,/‘Wo liad better take him "out of this.” Defendant took informant by the shoulders for tho purpose of removing him after the blows liad been struck. Did not remonstrate against this action, Saw informant thrown into the passage. Could see by leaning out of the slide. Informant had been at the hotel on and off for a week previously On the second day lie was at the hotel he drank three decanters of sherry. Could not see if defendant kept his knee in the small ot informant's back and walked on one leg. -Saw informant that evening. Informant asked who bad beep

knocking him about, ami witness replied that it was Constable lrxvin. Informant did not say why he could not say himself who had knocked him about. Did not remonstrate with any of the polico on the matter. Saw Sergeant Williams at tho hotel two or throo days after tho occurrence. Did not know that the sergeant had come out regarding the case of drunkenness. iSaid nothing to tho Sergeant about defendant’s ac- 1 tion. Informant was sober. Had his own work to do in tho evening, and ' could not spare the time to remind informant that lie know as well as witness who had knocked him about. Was quite sure informant did 'not fall into the passage without being pushed. Witness’s brother was the licensee of tho hotel, hut ho was ill. and witness was in cliargo. Did not think it his business to romonstrate with defendant.—Re-examined: Did not take any responsibility in regard to tho house. Was only barman. Defendant came from tho direction <u l’atutahi. Ho appeared to ho undor the influence of liquor. After informant went home defoudunt had a I drink with tho licensee.—By: .Mr. Rees: Did not know if tho licensee and..dofemlant came in from tho

street. Did not hear defendant say “You should bo more careful.” Die not hear Georgo Priestly say, “Make it as light as you can, as 1 am going out of tliis place soon.” John White, carpenter, recently foreman on a job at Waorenga-a-hika saiel tliat on January 20th he saw defendant rido up from Patutahi. Was standing under Colebrook’s verandah. Crossed over to the hotel and wont inside. Saw informant and defendant coming out of the taproom door. Informant was in front of defendant, who had hold of him by the shoulders or arms. Turned away momentarily, and hearing a fall looked round and saw informant on tho

ground. Informant rose unaided. Informant shuffled his feet when lie rose, and faced tho defendant. In this position was pushed towards tho front door. At the front door defendant gave informant a shove, and informant fell out on the gravel on his back or shoulder. Informant immediately rose again without assistance. Informant remonstrated with defondant, who again pushed him down. Witness was then at the front door. Informant rose again and was pushed down a third time. Saw no reason why informant should have been pushed down. As far as lie could see, informant was quite sober. Passed Beatson and Honkama when they were escorting informant home, and saw that his shirt was very much torn. —By Mr. Rees: Defendant used no violence to informant beyond pushing him. At the corner informant and defendant were facing each other. —Re-examined : Informant was struggling in tho passage, but went out of the front door backwards. Out of the front door informant fell about ten feet along tho gravel. HAPPENINGS ON THE ROAD. Mohanga Iloukauia, farmer, Waituhi, said hr was at Colebrook’s store, Waerenga-a-hika, one day in tho previous month. Saw both' informant and defendant there. It was soon after dinner. Was standing under''Colebrook’s verandah and saw informant and defendant. Witness corroborated the evidence of White as to falls in front of the hotel. After tho third fall witness went to informant to lead him away. Witness and Beatson took him towards his home. Went along the road with informant about five chains, returning to get Beatson’s horse, Beatson going on with informant. When witness went up to informant to lead him away ho saw informant’s shirt was torn. From what witness saw, informant gave defendant no provocation. Informant made no sign of wanting t-o fight defendant.-—By Mr Roes: When informant and defendant were in the hotel door informant’s face was towards witness. They did not stand for any time. Outside the door informant did not stumble and fall. He got a hard push at the door. Defendant did not go to informant and help him to riso from the ground. When informant roso after leaving tho hotel lie seemed to he as much in possession of his faculties as before falling. Informant appeared to be sober. Went with Beatson 1o take informant away. Informant could have gone home by himself. Ho was in a fit condition to walk away. Witness and Beatson helped informant out of compassion. At the door of the hotel saw defendant do nothing but push informant. Stephen Reed, farm laborer, Wacr-onga-a-liika, said that on the day in question ho saw informant and defendant about eleven yards from the front door of the hotel. Witness gave corroborative evidence as to the falls. .Noticed that informant’s shirt was torn after the second fall. Then offered his services to take informant home.—By Mr. Rees : Holp-

ed informant about- five chains along tho road towards his home. Saw Beatson also helping informant, but not Mohanga. After five chains had been covered informant was ablo to walk by himself. Geo. W. Liston, creamery manager, Waerenga-a-hika, said that on the day in question lie was standing in front of the hotel on tho corner of the roads. Saw informant come out of the hotel first. Informant got up, and was pushed down twice again with force. Saw no reason why lie should be pushed. /Informant did not- show signs of wanting to light defendant. He did not get a chance, as lie was pushed down as soon as he rose.

George Campbell, drover, Mikauri, said he was at Waerenga-a-hika on January 20th. Was standing near the fro (ft door of the hotel. Saw informant come, back first out of the hotel. When he rose the defend mt rushed at him ami threw him down. When informant had half risen'the defendant again threw him down, and when he next saw informant one sleeve of his shirt was torn. In all the handlings defendant seemed to be very rough. Informant did not ippear to be very drunk. If he had been very drunk lie could not have got up so quickly as lie did. In fact, was of opinion that informant was sober. Edward F. Gray, fanner, Makauri, said ho was at Waerenga-a-hika on tho afternoon of January 20th. M as standing two or three yards Horn the front- door of the hotel. He substantially corroborated the evidence ot previous witnesses as to what occurred outside the hotel. By Mr. Rees: Nobody interfered with tho constable when he was pushing inforniant about. — Lie-examined : personally did not interfere because lie feared the consequences of niteifciTng with the police constable. Georgo Colebrook, storekeeper, \\ a-Oi'cnga-a-liika. saitl that oil Januaiy 20th lie was in front of his stoic, which is opposite the hotel, about a chain distant. Ho also corroborated previous statements as to what oc-

curred outside. Undue force was used by defendant. —By Mr. Rees: Did not hoar anybody rumonstriito with defendant.—To tho Court: Did not remonstrate because defendant was a police constable. Would have interfered if lie had been a civilian. Charles Howard Beatson, carter, Waerenga-a-hika, who was standing about three yards from the front door on tho day in question, substantially corroborated the evidence ot previous witnesses. Alter informant's third fall-went across to where ho was, and told him it was time for him to “move on.” Thought informant might get oven worse treatment than he had if ho did not go home. Saw Reed there, but did not think lie offered to belli the informant. Took informant away because he thought he had been knocked about too much. Considered undue forco was used.—‘By Mr. Rocs: Did not think informant came back towards the hotel each time ho roso after being thrown down: When informant rose the first time heard defendant say it was time informant went home, but did not hear informant’s reply .‘—‘Re-examined: There was no sign ~qf informant wishing to fight defondant. 110 was very excited and was arguing with defendant. Informant was not drunk, but was under the influence of liquor. Ho could talk anti walk quite well. THE DEFENCE. Mr. Roes intimated that he did not intend to call any evidence. MR. REES’S ADDRESS.

Mr. Rees, addressing the Court, said that in tho more minute details all informant’s witnesses differed. Tho evidence of Priestly should he dismissed, as it was against common sense. One thing which had to he considered was that nobody had entered a protest against the use of undue forco. Not only did they not interfere at the time, but tlioy bad not interfered since bv reporting the matter to the constable's superior officer. The evidence of Priestly and White should be eomplireuV Tho

former said that at tho corner defendant had ouo of his knees in the small of informant’s back, and the latter said they were face to face. For this roason lie asked that tho case be confined to what occurred outside tho hotel. It had not- been proved that defendant knew that outside the door there was a step six

inches high. If informant had fallen out of the door he could not have fallen tho ten feet that one witness said he had. Again another said that informant fell six inches out of the door, and still another that he fell eleven yards. There could be no doubt that informant was angry, because ho thought he was being badly dealt with, and witnesses had stated that oil each occasion ho came again towards the hotel, which justified the defendant in pushing him back. The shirt informant said he was wearing had no stains on it, and there were no cuts such as would be expected if lie had fallen heavily on metal. The main question was whether undue force was used by de-, fendant, It was quite possiblo that in the execution of bis duty a constable might have necessity to use a largo degree of force. The police were not too well guarded. They could not carry round witnesses and assistance with them. It was to bo remembered that informant carne down to Priestly and asked who bad assaulted him, and it should not be forgotten that neither informant nor any of the witnesses had taken the trouble to enter a complaint about the action until after the issue of tho summons for drunkenness. The S.M. would have to give an opinion as to the degree of force used—-the opinions of the witnesses were of no value. He had no wish to impugn the witnesses for the prosecution. They were all undoubtedly reputable citizens, but lie (counsel) desired to draw bis Worship’s attention to an unconscious bias from which the witnesses would be liable to suffer: It was human nature, to favor the weaker side in everything, and the witnesses would be very liable unwittingly to exaggerate the degree of violence used bv defendant, JUDGMENT RESERVED. The S.M. said there was a large mass of evidence, and he would take timo to consider it. He would deliver judgment on tho following morning at 10.30 o’clock.