KENNEDY V. MILLER

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 6678, 28 November 1908, Page 11

KENNEDY V. MILLER

DUTIES OF A POLICE OFFICER. CASE AGAIN BEFORE JUDGE HASELDEN. (From O'ur Own Correspondent.) MASTER,TON, November 27. On May 23rd, on the occasion of the Anglo-Welsh football match, Janies Joseph Kennedy, a fanner, was removed from the grandstand by Police Sergeant Miller. Kennedy claimed £2OO damages for assault, the jury found a verdict for Kennedy for £d, and District Court Judge Haseldan gave' judgment for thau amount and costs on the District Court scale. This decision was appealed against as to costs and on the ground that no certificate of approbation under the Police Force Act had been given. Mr Justice Cooper, sitting in Banco on November 2nd, held that there was evidence that Sergeant Miller had reasonable grounds . for tho belief that Kennedy's conduct justified his interference as an officer of the police. His Honor allowed the appeal and set aside tho order for costs, with a direction to the District Court Judge that he was entitled to hear and determine upon tho merits ■an application for a certificate of approbation under section sixteen of the Police Force Act, such application, if made, to be made at the first ensuing sitting of the District Court at Hastertou. The appellant to have costs of the appeal fixed at £5 5s and Court fees.

The xase was called on at tho District Court to-day, when tho Judge was asked to, give a certificate that he approved of the action and tho jury’s decision.

D. Trimble, instructed by Mr C. A. Pownall, appeared for the plaintiff, and said he had looked through, all tho English and Colonial statutes but could not find any authority bearing on the subject. He contended that tho onus was on the defendant to prove that tlic case was not one which should have been brought. Mr P. L. Hollings, for the defendant, argued strongly in favour of the protection of tho police. Ho contended that after the Judge gave a certificate of approval tho jfow Zealand Police Force would have its protection from civil action absolutely swept awav.

His Honor admitted that everything w'as in favour of the defendant by the issues submitted except that on which tljo jury stated unnecessary violence

had been used. He said that he him•;cif could’ find no authorities ”in the matter and would have to give it caiciiii consideration, seeing that it would establish a precedent. Ho therefore reserved his decision.