District Court.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXIII, Issue 7215, 20 May 1898, Page 4

District Court.

(Before His Honor Judge Ward.) ACTION: FOB. DAMAGES. The case of Rule v. Christie, an action for'damages for'wrongful arrest, brought by a local butcher against a member of the local police force, was heard this morning. The statement of claim set forth : 1. That the plaintiff is a butcher and was, on the date of the grievance hereinafter mentioned, in the employment) of Norman Lane, a butcher, at Oamaru. : 2. On the night of the 23rd day of February, 1898, or early in the morning of the following day, the plaintiff was in Thameß street, Oamaru, when the defendant falsely accused the plaintiff of being drunk and of using obscene language, and did unlawfully assault and beat the plaintiff; and on the said false charge he arrested the plaintiff and took the plaintiff in custody a considerable distance along Thames street aforesaid towards the Police Station maliciously and without any reasonable cause and against the will of the plaintiff. 3. That the plaintiff was not drunk and did not usa obscene language, and denied the charge when the same was made. 4.. That the plaintiff has given to the defendant a proper notice' of action,. under section 16 of " The Police Force Act, 1881." 5 That in consequence of such ftlse charge and being so assaulted and taken into custody as aforesaid: The plaintiff suffered annoyance and disgrace and loss of reputation and character and was hurt and injured. "Wherefore, the plaintiff claims LIOO. The statement of defence set forth :

1. The defendant admits the allegation contained in paragraph 1 of the statement of claim; 2. He admits that, on the night of the 23rd day of February, 1898, or early in the morning of the following day, the plaintiff was in Thames street, Oamaru, but denies that he. the defendant, falsely accused the plaintiff of being drunk and of using obscene language, and also denies that he, the defendant, did assault and beat plaintiff, and also denies that he, the defendant, arrested the plaintiff and took him in custody. 3. He admits the plaintiff has given him a proper notice of action under section 16 of the Police Force & ct, 1886. 4. He denies that through any conduct of his the plaintiff suffered annoyance and disgrace and loss of reputation, or that his character was hurt and injured. Mr Lee appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Hanlon (Dunedin), with Mr Harvey, appeared for defendant. The following jury were empanelled : Messrs J. H. Barr (foreman), T. Drennan, "W. Allison, and J. P. Every. Mr Lee, after explaining the circumstances at some length, called William Henry Rule, butcher, who det posed that he was a member of the Oddfellows' Lodge, and attended a meeting of the Lodge on Wednesday, February 23. He left at about 11.45 p.m. It was a late night, there being a Grand Lodge representative present. He left in company with Messrs Whyte, Symington, and Creighton. They were on their way home when they met a man named Campbell. As the result of a conversation with Campbell, he and Whyte crossed the road in the direction of the Alliance Hotel. When they got into the middle of Thames street Constable Christie walked up from opposite the Alliance Hotel and struck witness on the side of the face, knocking him down. Christie then arrested him. "Witness asked what the constable meant and defendant replied : I arrest you for being drunk and using obscene language. " Christie was in uniform. - Witness said that defendant had made a mistake as they had just come away from the Lodge, and* there were two other members of the Lodge at the corner. Defendant gave no explanation and persisted in accused down towards the lock-up. Christie was very excited. Whyte followed him down towards the lock-up. Constable Treahy then came on the scene. Christie took him as far as the Courthouse. Witness kept trying to explain, but Christie would listen to no explanations. They stopped opposite the Courthouse and Creighton then came up and called Christie on one side and as the result of that conversation witness was released. They then went north, homewards, Creighton and Christie following. They then met Whyte and Symington. They all stopped opposite the Girls' High School, and discussed the matter. Creighton said it was all a mistake and counselled witness to shake hands with Christie. Witness refused at first, .but eventually after persuasion he shook hands with Christie. They all then moved on as far as the Theatre Royal. Campbell was present opposite the High School but Christie made no attempt to arrest him. He struck a match and said " that's one of them." Christie kept saying that there was some mistake, and he couldn't understand it. He told Christie that if it had been any one in plain clothes he wouldn't have stood it, and Christie said he would take his coat off, and then he would be in plain clothes. Witness had been 34 years in Oamaru, and was about the town daily. He knew Christie well. People had made inquiries of him about the matter the day after. By Mr Hanlon : There were extra festivities at the Lodge that night. When they met Christie he was about 20 or 25 .yards from the hotel. They were near the footpath. Christie was by himself. Treahy came up after Christie had knocked him down and arrested him. He was not lying on the ground when Treahy came; they had moved away some ten yards. He did not notice any people standing near the Alliance. It was a dark moonless night. Christie said nothing before striking him ; and witness had not spoken to Christie, nor had Whyte. While being marched down the street they meb Constable Cotter. Constable Treahy accompanied Christie a few yards .when the latter arrested him. Treahy did not put his haltids on witness, who offered no resistance. Treaby had left before Cotter came on the scene. He did i not hear what Creighton said to Christie. When he shook hands with Christie he did not shake hands all round. None of the others shook hands. He saw Mr Lee about the matter either the same morning : or next morning, with a view of getting damages. He would swear positively that when he came towards the Alliance Constables Christie, Treahy and Cotter were not standing together, i To Mr Lee : He had only had one small Iwhiskey and lemonade at the lodge. His .first instructions to hissolicitorwereto pro•iceed against the constable by information jfor assault. William Whyte, wool spinner, deposed *hat he had lived 14 years in Oamaru. He was at the lodge meeting on Wednesday, February 23rd. He had no alcoholic He left the lodge with Rule, Symington and Creighton. They tnet Campbell and he and Rule went in jthe direction of the Alliance Hotel. jWhen about the centre of the road Constable Christie came towards them by .himself. No words passed bub Christie struck Rule and knocked him down. I Witness said that they had just come from lodge and that there was a mistake. He said that there, were others at the corner :to prove it. Christie said he would arrest Rule for being drunk and marched him forwards the courthouse. Constables Treahy and Cc tter then appeared. Treahy struck ia match and said " there's something . wrong, I know this man." Christie paid ■no attention, but took Rule on. Witness •went over the road to see Creighton and ; Symington. They then went towards .the police station and Creighton went on iahead. Campbell was with them and Connolly also joined them. Rule then came up and' Creighton returned with Constables Christie and Treahy. There ;was some conversation about the matter. Creightonurged an amicable settlement of the business, and, after some persuasion, Rule and . Christie ; shook hands. There '

was no other hand-shaking. Christie .aaid there was some mystery ab.ont it. He saw Christie return a pair of handcuffs to Treahy. Christie was very excited. Christie recognised Campbell, but made no attempt to arrest him. To Mr Harvey: There was only one bottle of whisky at the Lodge. He would swear that! all the four .referred to aa leaving the Lodge : were sober. " He would point-blank deny that any one of them was not sober. He and Rale,'were only a pace apart when., Christie - met .them. Cotter, Christie and Treahy were not together at the time. Treahy did not go off with Christie, but remained behind with witness. John Symington, dyer, corroborated the previous evidence as to the incidents leading up to the charge. None of the four were the worse for liquor. He also corroborated the subsequent incidents and conversation. To Mr Harvey: He and Whyte and Rule had not discussed the question together in the Globe Hotel. The Court then adjourned for lunch.