RETURNED SOLDIERS IN TROUBLE.

North Otago Times, Volume CV, Issue 13930, 12 July 1917, Page 3

RETURNED SOLDIERS IN TROUBLE.

DISTURBING A DANCE. ;. ' ACCUSED ACQUITTED. . In the. Magistrate's Court yesterday, : v. before, Mr J; R. .Bartholomew, S.M., ~■ charges, which had previously been ad- ; journedj were preferred against James '•. :Batehelor, for being foimd''druiik in a public place, and for resisting the . police, and against William Maynard, for obstructing a constable while in the execution of his duty. Both defendants were returned soldiers and labourers of Oamaru, and were defended by Mr F. W. Onglcy. Senior-Sergeant Stagpoolc conducted the case for the prosecution. The three charges were taken simultaneously, Constable Montgomery - deposed that, on June 26th he received a message to the effect that two drunken men were disturbing a dance, and he went to the Druids' Hall, where he found Batchelor attempting to enter the hall, and saying, "Come on all you returned troopers." Witness advised him to go home, but he commenced to argue, say-

ing that he had' done nothing wrong, ■ He advised Maynanl to take Batchelor 1 home. On defendant refusing to leave witness pushed him away from the doorway on to the footpath. Defendant (Batchelor) then proceeded tip the street, but returned and commenced to

argue again. Witness then arrested

him. Maynard endeavoured to pull , Batchelor away, but desisted when told of- the consequences. Witness was obliged to force Batchelor along. At Eden street, Maynard tried to force himself between the. two, and, among other unpleasant remarks, asked him why he was not at the front. Maynard assisted Batchelor in his efforts to escape, and as lie (witness) had an injured arm and a cold he was obliged to , release his hold. To Mr Ongley; He did not know the man who, at the Polytechnic, informed him of the disturbance. He caught hold of Batchelor and pushed him into the street, telling him it would not do for him to appear in Court again. Witness denied kicking Batchelor, notwithstanding that there was a protest from bystanders. He had never been implicated in any charge of ill-treat-ment. He pushed Batchelor with the side of his foot, and as lie would not let go he placed his foot on his buttocks and pushed him into the road. He had his hands in his pockets. For the defence, Mr Ongley submitted that the constable had no right to push him from the doorway. Defendant was not committing any offence, as lie was not in a public place. Senior-Sergeant Stagpoolc: The arrest took place twelve yards away from the door.

The Magistrate, saidi it was a prima facie case. If. a may was beliaving'indeccntly then the constable would,be only attending to his duty in removing him.

Mr Ongley then called James Batchelor, who saiil lie remembered the police arriving. He had had liquor, hut was interfering with nobody. He was standing on the landing when the policeman approached him. He had not been misconducting himself. The constable kicked him, ami he landed on to the footpath, when the constable grabbed hold of him.. He did not resist, as lie was weak, having been rendered nervous with shell shock and splinters in his head, The constable knocked him about. Maynai'il asked the constable not to hurt witness. The constable twist.ed his arm, so that he fell in front of Bee's shop. He was going along quite quietly when he fell. Witness had not resisted until the constable twisted his arm,' To Senior-Sergeant Stagpoole: The drink had affected his head, William Maynard remembered the night of the occurrence. Both defendants "went into the hall, but did- not dance. They were in for about a quarter of an hour, and then went out to the lobby. He did not remember Batchelor calling out for the troopers, and nothing out of place was said. He saw the constable grab hold of Batchelor, and, it appeared to him, kick him. He followed the two past the comer of Eden street. They were going along quietly, and he determined to go homo. He then heard Batchelor call out that he was being hurt, and he asked the constable to desist, and said he would take Batchelor home. He would not have interfered had the constable not been ill-treating Batchelor. To Senior-Sergeant Stagpoole: He saw the constable kick and catch hold of Batchelor, who stumbled down the steps, and then place his hands in his pockets. Witness and Dawkins offered to take Batchelor home, but were refused. Thomas Henry Cordoek, draper, gave evidence that when he entered the Druids' Hall at about eleven o'clock he noticed Maynard and Batchelor in the lobby. Nc was standing near the door, which was partly open, and first saw the constable "put the boot in." Accused was an hour at the hall before ho was removed, and was not making a great disturbance, though he was speaking loudly. Charles Campbell Dawkins, insurance agent, said he did not know the defendants personally. He entered the hall about 10.30 p.m., and noticed defendants sitting in the hall. He did not

think their behaviour warranted any in- ;, terference, and except for talking in a .. Jpud voice, they .were befiaving in a . gentlemanly manner. On going outside he observed the constable catch hold of Batehclor and kick him three or four 7 tiriles. He remonstrated with the con- ) stable, and was told to mind his own business. The,kicking continued- after lie voiced his protest. Defendant never •resisted. The constable must have <■> kicked Batehclor seven or eight times. Jlr Ongley, in addressing the Bench, ■ contended that Batehclor could not be , convicted, and except where an offence '•'; was committed in a public place no ■;'• cJinrgc .could lie lifd. ..The .constable v-.-haifcim-right, to apply liis boot in any manner. Tn giving his decision, the. iiiigisii,.tmt» aaiil it was material to confer

the occurrences before the arrest. If the accused was creating a disturbance or trespassing then'the constable was justified in arresting accused, but on the other hand if accused was a guest' or wis there by tacit 'consent then no arrest was justifiable. The- evidence for defendant was so contradictory that he found'difficulty in reconciling it. As regards the prosecution he had only the constable's unsupported evidence, Dawkins must have drawn upon his imagination in stating that accused was kicked eight times, lie did not consider the arrest lawful, therefore resisting and obstructing were no offences, The charge would be dismissed without prejudice, but he was not at all satisfied.