FAILURE OF CLAIM

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 79, 17 August 1944, Page 3

FAILURE OF CLAIM

ALLEGED ASSAULT BY CONSTABLE Auckland, August 16. In the claim by Herbert Ivors, carpenter (Mr Robinson), against Leonard Tippett, a police constable (Mr Sullivan and Mr Macltay), for £2OOO general and £59 special damages for the loss of the sight of an eye, heard be - fore the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, the jury yesterday found for defendant. The claim was based on an alleged assault on plaintiff by the constable near Cadman’s Parking Station. Beach road, on the night of April 10 last. An employee of New Zealand Night Patrols, Leonard Courtney, gave evidence that on the night of April 10 he was on patrol and he met Constable Tippett at about 9.40 p.m. He walked with him to the Maori Hostel, and when the constable left witness saw two men standing on the corner near the parking station. As the constable walked toward them the two men parted. When witness inspected a touring car parked at the petrol station there, was no benzine tin in the car. COMPLAINT TO POLICE Sergeant Albert Carlyon, of the Central police station, stated that at about 10.55 p.m. on April 10 plaintiff called at the station and made a complaint to him. Witness noticed a small cut above plaintiff’s left eyebrow and an abrasion on his left cheek. In a statement made at the station plaintiff, in reply to a question by witness, said he was waiting for a girl he had promised to meet by the garage. He did not know her name or where she worked. Cross-examined by Mr Robinson, witness stated that he did not regard the injury as serious, but regarded the complaint as serious. Another police sergeant, John Henry Quartley, said he examined Constable Tippett’s hands, uniform and torch at 1.15 a.m. on April 11. His hands were quite normal, he was still tidily dressed and his torch was in order. JUDGE’S SUMMING UP If there was an assault, plaintiff could not only have brought the present action, but he could have prosecuted defendant, said his Honour in his summing up. After emphasising the importance of the case, his Honour said there was no doubt that one side or the other was lying. According to plaintiff a very serious, unprovoked and brutal assault had been committed on him by a police constable, whose duty was not to hit people but to. protect them. The jury was asked to believe that the constable committed the assault in the presence of two men who would be expected to give evidence against him. Plaintiff said he was down at that neighbourhood for a particular purpose, his Honour continued, and even if he were telling a pack of lies that would be no justification for a police constable to assault him as he alleged. Plaintiff said he had gone there to meet a woman to ask if she would go back to her husband, and the jury might think it strange that neither the woman nor her husband had been called as witnesses. After referring to the evidence of defendant, who denied that he touched plaintiff and said that plaintiff slipped on the rough surface £y the petrol pumps at the station, his Honour said that the question as to whom to believe was a matter for the jury. After a retirement of less than two hours, the jury returned a verdict for defendant, who was awarded judgment with costs.