ADVISED A FRIEND

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12425, 20 April 1926, Page 8

ADVISED A FRIEND

OBSTRUCTING THE POLICE CHARGE AGAINST ATTORNEY OUTCOME OF MOTOR FATALITY IVi Press Association. NAPIER, April 1». A somewhat unusual case was heard in the Polico,Court to-day when Arthur Cochrane Bennett, a Justice of the Peace, appeared before Mr K. W. Dyer, S.M., charged with wilfully obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty. The facts disclosed by the police evidence were to the effect that on the night of April 7tli there was a fatal accident on the Taradale road when a -•a;- driven by T. C. Lowry ran ciova man and killed him. After taking the body to the morgue Dowry went to the police station to report the matter, and Constable Murray was instructed to take a statement as to tile facts of the case. Lowry was invited to make a statement, and was taken into the w atch-house behind a counter, and commenced to make a statement. Defendant then entered, and went behind the counter, behind which no one was allowed without permission, and said: “1 am sorry to hear about this, Tom.

Making a statement, are you? My advice to you is to make no statement, and sign nothing.” The defendant then went to read the statement, but the constable stopped him. He covered up the and asked the defendant who he was. Bennet replied that he was Lowry’s attorney. The constable replied: “I don’t nre who you ax*e, you have no right here.’*

The defendant persisted in staying, but ultimately left. Several times he advised Lowry. to make no statement to the police, and to sign nothing. When Bennett left in view of the instructions of his attorney he could not make a statement, and would not sign any statement. It transpired during the evidence for the defence that Bennett actually was Lowry's attorney, and that Lowrv had requested him by telephone to call at the police station. “MIGHT BE RUDE” In regard to the defendant going behind the counter, His Worship said that people doing this without invitation migfit be rude, but in, this case they were not trying a case of good of bad manners, but a case of obstruction. In this regard authorities held that in order tor a case to be established thero must he evidence of intent. The mai. must have intended to obstruct, ano he did not think it was the intention of the defendant to do so. The defendant went to the station at the request of Lowry, and merely intended giving him advice as his attorney. As it was the legal officers’ holidays at the time Lowry could not get his solicit™, so he got his attorney. OBSTRUCTION NOT INTENDED The advice given may have been wrong or improper advice, but the question was why was it given ? His Worship thought it was not given for the purpose of obstructing the police, hut to keep out of trouble by not making any admission that might lead to a criminal prosecution. The defendant thought Lowry was too distressed to make a statement, and advised him against doing so to help him but not with the intention of obstructing the police. The information would be dismissed.

Mr Scanned (counsel for defendant) said he had suggested that the action should not have 'been brought. However, the police evidently thought the defendant intended to obstruct them. The police evidently thought that Bennett acted in a tactless manner, and mnv have taken it as rudeness on his part, and they evidently thought he had “just h\itter in” and obstructed them. Had Bennett told the police in the first placo that he was present as attorney for Lowry and at Lowry’s request it would have cleared the flatter considerably.