BOGUS BOBBIES.

NZ Truth, Issue 215, 7 August 1909, Page 6

BOGUS BOBBIES.

Did They Demand Hush Money?

The question of whether George Deveiin and George Bettridge were really impersonating policemen for gain or were doing it for the fun of the thing ' has yet to be decided m Christchurch Magistrate's Court. The two men were charged last week with being rogues and vagabonds, and Lawyer Donuefly explained ithat their extraordinar y conduct was due (to beer. It seems that the men had on overcoats resembling those of the regulation police overwear, and m addition ithey wore head coverts, with badges on, which resembled the ordinary shako. One produced next morning m Court was an ordinary "hard-hitter," cut away and pointed at back and front to resemble a shako ; and which might easily be mistaken for such m the dark. It was alleged ithat the men stationed themselves at Carlton Bridge, noted cyclists riding on the footpath, or otherwise dislocating the by-laws, and demanded "hush money" m consideration of the fact that there would be no prosecution. Lawyer Donnelly, who appeared for both men, Held that neither could be classed as a rogue and vagabond, and the offence i(if any) had been laid under the wrong section ; of the Act. He submitted that, if either of the men had obtained money by stating that he was a policeman, a charge should be laid of false pretences. There appeared to be a popular delusion that if a civilian wore a policeman's uniform it was an offence ; but although at one time m 'New Zealand it had been an 'offence, and was now an offence m Great Britain, it was not now a breach of the law for a civilian to wear policeman's uniform. Sub-Inspector McGrath made reference to the fact that the, men had OBTAINED MONEY BY IMPERSONATING; POLICEMEN. Mr Donnelly said, that m the circumstances his clients would not plead guiljty to being rogues and vagabonds. Sub-Inspector McGrath said he was not laboring under the popular delusion mentioned by Mr Donnelly that citizens were not permitted to wear a policeman's uniform. It was not a crime unless the uniform was worn with a felonous in•tent. Section 51, under which the charge bad been laid, dealt with "disguise for lelonous intent." The Sub. asked for a remand until the following "Wednesday, as be didn't 'have any witnesses present. The case of the police was that 5s had been obtained from one man, and probably money had been obtained from others. . . Magistrate Haselden. said he would like ■to hear some particulars about the case, and Sergeant Keep was called. He said that at 10.40 p.m. he received a telephone message that two men were ' acting as policemen at Carlton Bridge, and m company with Bobby Brown he cycled up to the locality. As the police rode up the men got m front of them, and one of them made a rush at Constable Brown. Discovering their mistake, the culprits'' scattered, but Develin was arrested, Bettridge getting away. •Bettridge was boohed next morning, how-; ever. When questioned later, Develin said, "We're only having a " bit of fun. jWe're doing no harm." At the police station the man was searched, when the imitation shako was discovere m a pocket. Mr Donnelly contented himself with tailing 'Tev. Livingston, who said that lie had known Develin since ' his infancy, ■ and had never known anything against him, excepting that he was m the habit »f having periodical razzles. The man mentioned was a good worker and had dls a day any time he wanted it. Bet■ttridge was married to Develin's sister, and the 'Tec. 'Was surprised to hear that (jelther of them had got into trouble. . The. men were remanded till the following Wednesday, and on Mr Donnelly|s .application they were liberated on their town recognisances of £10 each.