POLICE OBSTRUCTED

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 30 April 1934, Page 4

POLICE OBSTRUCTED

RAHOTU HOTEL INCIDENTS FINE IMPOSED ON LICENSEE DRUNKENNESS CHARGE DISMISSED. After reserving his judgment at the conclusion of the hearing of charges against Edwin Dudley Whittle, licensee of the Rahotu Hotel, of obstructing Constable Ruston in the execution of his duty and of being drunk in a public place, Mr W. H. Woodward, S.M., gave his decision on Saturday, dismissing the charge of drunkenness and convicting the defendant on the charge of wilfully obstructing the police. The defendant was fined, £3 and ordered to pay costs and witnesses’ expenses amounting to 17s 6d. In giving his judgment the magistrate said: This defendant is charged with being found drunk in a public place and with wilfully obstructing Constable Ruston in the• execution of his duty. The evidence for -the. defence is .in marked contrast in some points to that of the constable, and the defence developed rather a- sharp criticism of the constable’s actions in the case.'ahtl alleged'“prejudice" had I been said to he shown by him against / I the defendant. I did not give judg- 1 j ment on the day of the hearing,, .said Mr Woodward, because the integrity of the police, whose evidence is so much relied on by courts becomes very vital, and it is equally vital that the police should be indifferent as between different members of the community; I that they should not have any prejudices. So when the integrity of the 1 police is in question or when there, is a question of prejudice, it is the duty of the court to leave no doubt as. to what its findings are on such points. It appeared from the constable’s evidence that there were two separate, incidents at the hotel. The defendant admitted he had jostled the constable after seeing the illustration by the constable of how that had taken-place. The constable had said that prevented him from taking the names of some of those in the bar, though he admitted he got them afterwards from the defendant himself. I think the constable is right in this in saying that he was prevented from getting the names, and that was the purpose, for which the defendant jostled him. The defendant said he was taking the part of his customers and the constable told him to get out of it. That is a wilful obstruction of the constable in the execution of his duty, and the defendant must be convicted on that charge.

SUBSEQUENT EVENTS. What happened after then, said the magistrate, is not so clear. The defendant says the constable got him by the throat, or made a clutch at his throat. I do not believe that. I do not believe the constable took the' offensive at that stage. They were somewhere at the middle of the bar. It is clear they got to the door of the hotel, and the defendant says he was hanging on to the constable’s coat and pleading with him. Ido not think the constable took the offensive in any improper way as alleged. They came out of the door of the bar holding on, and the defendant followed the constable in that manner and they got to the door of the hotel. Then by some means the defendant got on to the. footpath, and if he was drunk he was liable to be arrested in a public place. He was arrested and taken along to tbe lockup. There the constable could not find his keys, and as the defendant was pleading to be allowed to go he was released. The constable says, the defendant was “dying drunk.” The defendant admits he was crying, and Mrs Ruston says he was crying and pleading. I think the constable may have some excuse for believing the defendant was drunk, but I have come to the conclusion that he was not drunk, on the evidence of other respected citizens. He was not drunk enough to warrant arrest. It would have been better if the constable had given more consideration to the question of whether he was drunk enough to arrest. If he had done that and been satisfied he should be arrested, then he should not have been moved, from that course by the defendant’s pleading. The charge of drunkenness will therefore he dismissed. .

CONSTABLE’S ATTITUDE. It has been further suggested, said Mr Woodward, that the constable- has shown a prejudice against the defendant. The defendant was reported upon by the constable at the June meeting of the Licensing Committee as being a man who did not clear his bar promptly at six o’clock. From the evidence of Mr Green, and from the defendant's character, I think he is a man who is perhaps weak in the control of his bar. There have been suggestions or complaints, so that the constable has had to warn the defendant about not closing his bar at the right time. The police station is close to the hotel, almost next door, and under those circumstances I don’t think the defendant has cause to complain that he sees a good deal of Constable R,listen. There was nothing to show that lie had Whittle “set” or that he was doing anything unfair to him. There was just the one instance -referred, to of the constable, knocking at the door and giving the name of the defendant’s barman and thereby causing him to he admitted. The constable, _ how- ® ever, was not given an. opportunity of denying that. It was certainly not proper if it was done. There ■ was, however, no evidence that he had any improper prejudice against this man.

WIFE’S EXPENSES REFUSED. Senior-Sergeant Turner, who appeared for the police, said Constable R-us-ton’s expenses amounted to 17s 6d, and he asked also if the court would allow Mrs R.uston her expenses. Mr Sheat said that was a matter for the court. He had hoped that nothing more would lie said about Mrs R.uston. He purposely did not crossexamine her yesterday, and made no comment about her being called', but he would say nothing further than in in an experience of over 16 years’ practice in the courts in this district this was the first occasion he had known of a constable bringing his wife to help him support a charge, and he submitted it was not proper to allow her any expenses, especially as the only charge on which she had given evidence had been dismissed. The. magistrate imposed a fine of £3 on the defendant for obstructing the police, and allowed the expenses of the constable. No allowance was made for Mrs R,us ton’s expenses, and he refused that because he had dismissed 1 the charge on which she gave evidence. Mr Sheat: May the defendant have time to pay ? The magistrate: What, £3? Mr Sheat: Yes;• lie is * without means. Mr Woodward: Then I will allow him a month.