CONSTABLE SUED FOR WRONGFUL ARREST

Manawatu Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 3496, 4 November 1926, Page 9

CONSTABLE SUED FOR WRONGFUL ARREST

Damages Claimed by Aggrieved Husband

WHOSE WIFE WANTED SEPARATION ORDER

[Per Press Association.]

DUNEDIN, Last Night,

A writ filed by John William Lockett, in an attempt to recover damages from Constable George Macartney of Mornington, for alleged assault and alleged false imprisonment, was the cause of an action in the case heard to-day before His Honor Mr. Justice Sim, and a common jury of twelve.

The issuing of a writ followed the hearing of a case in tha lower'court, in which a charge of drunkenness against Lockett was dismissed. The hearing of that case and a maintenance suit in which Lockett was defendant, drew considerable public Interest, and as was expected, the action to-day was closely followed by a large attendance, Mr. W. G. Hay appeared for Lockett ,and Mr. A. C. Hanlon, with C. J. L. White, represented Constable Macartney Lockett’s claim was for £IOO fof the alleged assault, and for £300! for the alleged false imprisonment. That the facts of the case were somewhat unusual and somewhat extraordinary was first pointed out by Mr. Hay In his opening address to tho jury. It was claimed, he said, that on July 23rd Locked was unlawfully assaulted and unlawfully imprisoned. Lockett was In due course brought before the Magistrate, who dealt with tho case.

The defence in the action was that the man was drunk, and was arrested by the constable in pursuance of the powers which admittedly he had, to arrest a person who was drunk. What tha jury had to consider was whether tockett was drunk at tho time. It was claimed that he was perfectly sober, and that tho constable did not arrest him in the ordinary course of his duties, but for other reasons, quite and utterly unjustifiable.

Adressing the jury, Mr. Hay said tlie wife took proceedings against Lockett for a separation order. The case was first heard in May and was then adjourned for two months, coming before the court again on July 19, four days before the alleged assault. A number of witness testified to Lockett’s sobriety, though Constable Macartney said he was an habitual inebriate, which was one of the grounds of the wife’s application fora separation order. A further feature was in respect to a shop occupied by Mrs Lockett at South Dunedki. Constable Macartney admitted that the money for the shop was supplied by his wife. It was suggested- that it was in his own and his wife’s interests for Constable Macartney to keep Lockett and his wife apart. That war, th position four days before tho allege:! assault.

Counsel went on to say that Lockett was followed on certain nights after that. He intended to trace Lockett's movements on the day from 4 o’clock in the afternoon till he found himself in the hands of Constable Macartney at a quarter to twelve. Evidence as to plaintiff’s condition on tho night in question was given by plaintiff and several witnesses. The case is still proceeding.