WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENT

NZ Truth, Issue 104, 15 June 1907, Page 5

WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENT

ROBERTS ACCUSED OF

ROBBERY.

And Arrested on a Woman's

Mere Say-so.

Has Absolute Proof of His Innocence

bot Gets no Redress

In this glorious land of liberal government and free speech a man may be locked up for a night m the cold, damp cells of any one of his Majesty's prisons on the mere say-so of any irresponsible person who chooses to come along and lay an information. As an instance of what might happen to an innocent man m this enlightened country, mostly run by men of the J. J. North breed, a happening m Pestone last week serves as a very good illustration-. A young man named Edgar Roberts was on Thursday week last arrested on a charge of breaking and entering a house m the smelly suburb. Roberts, when asked to interview Sergeant Cox, was astounded and treated the affaiir as a joke, but he found it no joke wh«n he was informed tbat -a woman had sworn that she had seen him enter the house of a local cycle-maker and depact with sundry stolen articles m his possession. This lady had pointed Mm wit to the police int the street, and it was little 'wonder that when confron'bed with him and i several others m the prison yard that she was able to identify Mm again. Although Roberts protected his innocence and offered to prove that he was elsewhere at the 'dme the alleged robbery took place, it stood him no av<aii. He was cast into a cell, aad had to undergo some hours of durance .vile before being SET AT LIBERTY. And even then/This dismissal was unsatisfactory, as he was let loose because there was no evidence against him. It appears the police had searched his house' and foomd nothing wherewith to incriminate him. He was tet at liberty then, not because he was found innocent, . but because there was nothing to prove him {guilty. To the outside public he stands m t'*e same .position as the person wiio. under the Scots' law, is given his liberty as "Not proven." The public know that this man has been arrested, they know that he has had to suffer prison, and they tamow that he has been set at liberty witthout -trial. In the public estimation, therefore, be is a man Under suspicion, of bouse-to reaking and robbery, just because some irresponsible person, a ' woman, told the police that she had seen him entering the bouse and leaMing it. According to her story he was within the dwelling some time, but it never seems 'to have entered her head to gdv-e • the alarm whilst ne was m there. The police might have questioned her as to this, but evidently they thought they had a desperate criminal, and that the proper thing to do was to DUMP HIM INTO A CELL and enquire about their informant's toona fides afterwards. •• Constable Larkin, it appears, knew Roberts and told the Sergeant, that ho thought there was some mistake, but the Sergeant wasn't taking any chances. A search was made of -Roberts' 'house and no trace of the missing articles (some neckties and a watch-cha-in-l oould be found, and possibly, other evidences of his innocence were discovered, so the police, to cover up this blunder, let the suspect go. But the cruellest part of .the affair was that, had he 'been given an opportunity to do so, Roberts could have proved his innocence beyond all possible shadow of doubt. At the very time tbe robbery took place, or, rather, at the time be was alleged to have been seen entering the ' burgled house he was at dinner at the bouse of a relative, m( company with several persons, one of whom was none other than 'the constable's wife. It is a scandalous thing, therefore, (that this man, who is well-known, and BEARS A GOOD NAME m Petone, should have been the vie* tim of either a stupid emotional woman's blunder or of her spite. The police should institute some enquire ies as .to how this woman came to swear to tho identity of a man who has most conclusive proof that he was not near the 1 spot at the time. It would not be merely a mistake of identity made from a casual glance as she saw the burglar /both enter and leave the house, .and should have had, therefore, a good . opportunity of, marking well his features, and there is absolutely no excuse for a mistake m Roberts' identification, as she pointed him out m the street, and again picked him out from others m t»be prison yard. Such wicked carelessness as this (not to use a stronger -term and impute malice) -deserves punishment, both as a warning to others, and 1 to put the victim right m the eyes of the public. In this case proof of innocence was easy, but it mlig'ht not have been. Circumstances may have .aided the woman's statement and painted to guilt, and Roberts may, like many a man before him, have been condemned and made to suffer for another's guilt. It is to be. hoped that this will act as a warning to the person concerned, and that she won't rush', m to lay information against people m future unless absolutely sure of her ground.