AN OPEN COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVI, Issue 9368, 18 May 1889, Page 5

AN OPEN COURT.

A POOR MAN'S SON IN CUSTODY.

HOW HIS CASE WAS DEALT WITH.

"CONSTABULARY DUTY MUST BE DONE." The other day wc showed how justice was administered in the case of the Bon of a well-to-do person, now we propose to show how it was dealt out in the case of the son of a poor man. As we are not concerned with persons but principles as affecting the public welfare, we suppress the names, and give the story as far as the father of the lad can give it. To make the narrative intelligible it may be necessary to state that it goes without saving that nobody in the affair thought much about the hlasting of the future of his boy, or the injury likely to be done to his family.

HOW IT HAPPENED. Some time ago (says the father) I came from the country to town. Near the residence, at the time of my stay, was a vacant allotment, where mv boys used to play, and hard by a dilapidated dwelling, which three weeks previously had been vacated by the tenant, owing to its state of disrepair. About three days before tho incident to which I refer, some of my family noticed that the door of tho old place was standing open, someone having called to see the Lite tenant, and pushed the dilapidated thing in. My sons, one 11 and the other 1-, were in the habit of playing on the unfenced allotment. On the morning in question, about half-past seven the elder boy went over to the allotment to get dry dock leaves, &c., as it lighted the tire readily. Shortly after the younger boy (11) went over to the ground, and, seeing the door open of the old house, entered it, picked up two small pieces of board lying on the tloor, and went out on to the allotment, putting them under his arms to imitate alamo man, playing a game of " crutches." Just then the agent of the house passed along, and seeing the lad with the two pieces of timber, went towards him. The little fellow, alarmed at the action of the man, and fearing he was going to " hammer him," as he called it, dropped the crutches and ran away. The elder boy, meanwhile, had stood his ground, and the man wont up to him, and collaring him, took him in the old house, taxed him with going in, taking the timber, and damaging the place. The lad stoutly denied that he had been inside, or that he had taken the wood. Without further ado, without any reference to the child's parents adjacent, the man took him by the wrist and marched off towards the police station with him. At this the younger boy ran in home, saying a man had taken off his brother by the cuff ot the neck down the street. My wife roused me out of bed, and putting on my tronsers, I ran down the street in my bare feot, overtaking the man and boy about 200 yards down the street. I asked the man what he was doing with my eon. He said he was taking him to the lock-up for getting timber out of the bouse. I told him he could not do business in that style, and took the lad out of his custody, telling the boy to go home. If he was aggrieved there was a proper way to get redress. Shortly afterwards a constable camo up to my house, saw the boy, examined the old house, and did not see any damage to it, but the two small pieces of rough timber which appeared to have been a bit of shelving. lie saw a ton of wood in my yard, besides light wood, so that there was no need of firing, and he valued the pieces of timber at Id ! He found, 011 investigation, that the man had not seen the boy take the wood, and that ho oould not identify it, though, to the best of his belief, the lad had taken the wood, and that the pieces wero part of the shelving of the house. Under all the circumstances as to non-identification, and talcing into account the trumpery value of the bits of boards, the constable refused to arrest the lad. The sergeant became acquainted with the affair, came to my house, and went over the same ground of investigation as the constable, and he also refused to make the arrest. However, about 110011 a superior t>fficor cam > to my house, made some inquiries, took the lad away with him to the police station, and said to call down by and by, in an hour or two, to see about the matter. After dinner I went to the police station, and found the little fellow locked up in a cell, and bailed him out, to appear in the ordinary course at the Police Court 011 Monday. On Monday morning I went down, and as the two first pol'ce otlicors concerned refused to arrest the lad, did not provide for counsel, believing that when the case was called before the Court it would all be explained, and the case dismissed. 13 P. FORK THE COURT. When the case was called on the lad was put in the dock, and asked whether he pleaded guilty to tho charge of stealing two pieces of timber, value Is, the property of . He said "Not guilty;" that he and his. brother were playing in the allotment, but that they took the "chip?" on the allotment, as they called the mixture of dock loaf, etc., to be found there. Tho complainant gave his evidence in support of tlio charge. Singular to say, tho officer who made Ihe arrest was not in Court at all, or his evidence called for. So far as I know the Justices had no cognizance of the circumstance that two police officers had investigated the affair, and refused to make the arrest, or as to the dilapidated condition of the house, being all unfastened, &c., although the wife of the outgoing tenant was prepared bo swear the house was in the same condition as when she loft it, with the exception of the two boards referred to. When the complainant had given his evidence, the little fellow was invited to ask questions or crossexamine the witness. Poor little chap, I don't think ho knew what cross-examina-tion of a witness meant ! As he said afterwards, " I didn't take the timber, so I didn't know what to ask him." Some question was asked, as the boy was not able to say anything, about the child's parents. I got up to state I was his father, and to explain the matter, when the sharply-repeated exclamation of " Silence !" promptly brought me to my seat again. Looking round I saw a solicitor there whom I knew, and stepping up to him I said, " Will you speak for my boy ?" He kindly got up, and called the attention of the Bench to the boy's youth, and tho absence of any proof of felonious intent. TWO REMANDS. The Bench decided to remand the case till next day for the report of the Probation Officer, bail being allowed. I may say my boys were nob known to the police, had never been in trouble, or before Court previously in their lives, so what bhe Probation Officer had to learn I can't imagine. On the Tuesday the boy was again brought up, and again remanded. On the Wednesday ho was finally brought up and ordered for the " pennorth" of timber, as the constable valued it, or the shilling's worth, as the complainant had it, to be

PLACED UNDER the first offenders' PROBATION act,

and to give sureties for his good conduct for six months ! The spectators in Court were amazed, as they poured out of Court, at the sentence upon the lad. At the close of the proceedings there were murmurs both loud and deep, and very emphatic comments on the decision.

[One published report is silent as to the boy's conduct on the last day he was brought up, but another says lie pleaded guilty. The boy himself says he does not know the ways of the Courts, or the language they use, but he was clear in his own mind he did not plead guilty, but that from beginning to end he maintainedas he does now—his innocence,]

The boy had to go up every four weeks to gaol, and report himself in person to the gaol authorities, and finished this task a short time ago. One compassionate officer, who knew the circumstances, said, as he saw the little fellow tramping into the gaol, "It's a scan 1 dalous shame ! I never heard of a boy being dealt with like this for so small a thing. But the law has said this must bo done, and it must be obeyed." That is the whole story, sir.

The following were the prisoners in the lock-up last evening : —A man on a charge of drunkenness, Douglas Lee for assaulting Wong Gong, Charles Wilson and Samuel Gray (boys) for stealing sacks from J. Bainbridge (Ponsonby), Olof Jacobson and William McGee for a breach of the Shipping and Seamen's Act, by refusing duty on the ship Banffshire.