CHARGE AGAINST A CONSTABLE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10414, 17 July 1895, Page 4

CHARGE AGAINST A CONSTABLE.

The further hearing of the charge against Constable William Davis, of having, on the Ist inst.,

in Moray placs, in view of passers by, used behaviour whereby a brsach of the peace was occasioned—that is to ?ay, with assiuliinß Honora Carey—took place- before Mr K. 11. Caresv, S.M., at the City Police Court yesterday afternoon. Mr Solomon appeared to conduct the prosecution, and Mr Haulon to defend. Dr Jeffcoat (recalled) said that when he went down to the police station he said the constable was-not fit to wear a uniform. He charged the constable with the offence, and the woman Carey j said it was a cruel shame. When charged the j constable did not say anything about being caught , by the trousers. Witness said, "Yon kicked her, ] twice " ; and the constable replied, ".I did not." To Mr Hanlon : The constable was not there the whole time. Dennis Moloney stated that he was a member of the Commercial Travellers' Club. He left the club room about 11 o'clock on the night in question, and stood, in company with otbew, a yard or two nearer Princes street than the club-room door. Dr Jeffcoat came up and spoke to them. Their attention was drawn to t«'O women coming from the direction of the Jewish Synagogue. The women crossed the street and came on to the same side as witness, and walked slowly towards Princes street. A man came round the corner, who afterwards turned out to ba the constable, and he and the women met. They met from 2<l to 25 yards from where witness was. It was light, enough to see them distinctly.' When they met witness thought the woman spoke to the constable, who was going to pa<s them. He struck the short woman with his knee or with his foot. It was a blow with the leg, and she fell. cShe was struck at the back. It did not seem to be an accident. . Witness thought the constable lifted her up by the arm and shook her. Did not see another kick given. The man left the woman, said "Good night" to witness and his companions, and passed to the other side of the street. One of the women called out something about Cooigardie, and., the'1 constable went back and arrested the short woman. Witness went down to the police station, and the complaint lodged by Dr Jeffcoat was made with witness's concurrence. Dr Jeffcoat told Ihe constable he was not fit to wear a uniform, as he had brutally kicked the woman; The woman sii'd it was a sliame to kick a woman. The constable did not, in the hearing of witness, say that the woman had attempted to take liberties with him. He denied that he kicked her. - :

To Mr Hanlou : The women were merry. Witness thought the bis woman was walking on the outside, when the constable eatne up on the sams side. Witues3 did not hear what they said to the constable, but thought by the constable, interfering that they had said something. The constable had on a top coat. Could not say whether he had anything in his hands. Thn constable had fiaid it was. his knee that struck the woman, and witness would not .like to swear that it was his foot. Witness could see his legstriks the. woman. The constable's back was towards witness, but he could see the wotnau. Witness thought the lett went out towards the wall, sideways, from where he (witness) stood. Witness' could ■ not swear as to the relative positions of the women. The smaller one fell on her hands and knees when struck, bur, witness could not say whether she fell towards the gutter or not. Witness's hearing was good, but. he , did not hear the blow. His impression was that after the blow the constable shook the woman and told her .to go home. Witness's eyesight was good, but ha did not see a

second blow. After shaking the woman the constable let her go. He then went away. Witness did not notice a second kick. Thought he would have noticed if the constable had kicked the woman a second time when he was holding her. The one kick seemed to be a violent blow. It was from the movement of" the leg that witness gathered it was a violent blow. None of them interfered. There was no time to reach the conBtable and the womeu before the constable left the women. No one called out. Did not notice the small wsuian ?o round the other woman and the constable slip round tolkick her. - The blow took, place very suddenly when the constable, arrived. Something else was said besides the word

" Coolgardie," but witness could not say what it was. Witnes? and his companions followed to see that the constable did not farther illtreat the woman, Did not think the taller woman was present when the constable arrested Carey. The woman,'when at the station, said that "it was a cruel shame ; that they all had mothers/and that it was a shame to kick a womau." :

To Mr Solomon : There was no time to interfere at th« start, but when tbej' saw Davis go back they made up'thtir minds to protect the woman if necessary. They then found he was a constable, and thuiichtthey had no right to interfere, but made u.p their minds to go to the station and make a comp'aint. The blow, whether with the knee or the. foot, was sufficient to justify the constable, being reported. ■'-■';

Albert Vallis, who gave his evidence-in-chief before, was cross-examined by Mr Hanlon. Hesaid the little woman did not appear to be intoxicated to any great degree. The women, were' about 22 or 23 yards away, and it was fairly light. One could tee their outlines p'ainly. A man came round the corner, and. the women seemed to accost him. The big woman was near the wall and the small woman was near the constable. "Witness believed this. 'I he .constable was near the gutter,, with, his back about three-quarters turned towar's witness. He had on "a" long macintosh. , The blow struck the woman on,the lower part of the back, and it was, in'witness's opinion, the foot that struck her, but he would not swear it. It was the right leg that struck the' woman. Witness thought tnat the constable's foot came out-from under his overcoat. If the constable said he did not kick the woman, witness would still hold to his. opinion that it was a kick he saw., The womau fell, and witness could hot say whether she got up or was picked uyj. Witness's sight was not good. He distinctly saw the second kick, and thought it was .in the same place,'but: the,positions of the constable and the women were somewhat changed, and witness could not see so well. Did not know if the woman fell this time. It seemed as if the constable had a parcel under his coat when he passed witness and bis companions. Could notsayif he had a walking .stiek.Didnqtseethe constable shake the woman. After the first blow he did not see the' little woman slip round the other. Witness would certainly call the blows that were struck violent. To Mr Sol mon: Could not have interfered to prevaut the blows being struck. Had not time. Witness saw the man aim two violent blows at the woman. ...... . . .

This closed the ca«e for the prosecution.

Mr Hanlon, in addressing the bench on behalf of accused, commented on the fr.ct that the two persons who ought to bo best able to speak as to whether or not the assault actually occurred were the two women, and yet the police had not called them. What reason could there be for tho police to le*ve thesß two women uncalled ?

His Worship asked if one of the women bad not been convicted of having been drunk on this occasion.

Mr Hanlon replied in the affirmative. - His Worship asked what force the evidence of that woman could have. ,;

Mr Hanlon said it,was true the woman was convicted, but there was evidence that the woman did not appear to be drunk, and Dr Jeffcoat said she was merry. A person of that kind could, of course, speak with some certainty as to the faeffs, and she could say whether or notshe was brutally kicked. Her evidence iD that respect at any rate could be relied on.

Mr Solomon : You cannot get a word out of her, and we know why perfectly well.

Mr Hanlon went on to say tbat there was the other woruau who might be called. There was no evidencs to show that she wai drunk. Counsel proceeded to review the evidence and to point out iucunsistencies in the statements of the different witnesses. He draw attention to the fact that those witnesses took no action at all till they found out that the man was a constable—no one so much as rose his voice, much less his fiuger, to protect the woman from the brutal attack by the constable. No, they did not interfere, lout waited till they found out he was a policeman, and then said We will get his coat taken off his back, and they rushed down to the Police Station. They thought, probably, at first, it was ths act of sonis larrikin He did not mean to say that they had come to the court to tell what was untrue, for lie believed/they were trying to say what they remembered, but they were mistaken as to somu particulars that occurred. There were three yeopls—Dr Jeffcoat, Mr Vallis, ami Mr M'Guianess— who swore that they saw two i kicks given. The ; first blow he would be able to explain, and if his Worship accepted the constable's statement then, as j far as that kick was concerned, it could not be held to be a breach of the peace. As far as the second kick was concerned, there- would be a strong conflict of testimony, and the evidence he would lead would agree with that of Mrßasstian aud Mr Moloney. Where there was a conflict of evidence such as this, his Worship would take the probabilities of the matter into consideratiou, and here, counsel submitted, the probabilities were all against the prosecution. The whole case had been laboured in a most peculiar way. First, it was only n, police prosecution, and now they fouud couiuel was oiieaeed. Mr Solomon said he would explain that. Mr Hanlon would like to hear the explanation. Jlr Solomon : The Women's Franchise League saw the case in the paper, and thought it was a proper case in which counsel should be encaged. They asked me tn appear, and I said I would, and Inspector J'ardy had no objection, and therefore I am here. The league .pay. me. Mr Haalon .said he happened to know more about his friend's retainer than that. M.r Solomon replied that if his friend said anything different to what he had said lie would say what was untrue. Mr Hanlon, turning to his. Worship, said if there was any don lit in the ease the constable should get the benefit of that doubt, and, before he concluded, again referred to the absence of the two women from the court. He thought their absence a most extraordinary thing. William Davis said he was a married man with two children. On the Ist July he was going home in plain clothes. Ho had an overcoat on, and carried a parcel of fruit under his left arm and his stick iv his right hand. When near Montigue's corner he heard a woman, the worse for drink, calling out. Witness went round and met two women. The smaller woman of the two, Honora Carey, came up aad caught hold of witness in an indecent manner, put one arm round his waist, and said, " \Vher« nre you goiti;;, ducky; come home with me." Witness had his hands full, and put up his right knee aud slued louud.'and struck the woman somewhere about ths hip, and che fell on her hsnds. Witness picked her up. The tail woman was about a yard away, and witness said to her, " Take this woman home out of this or I will have to lock her up." The big woman said " Come ou ; don't bo a ffjol," ami with that witness walked away towards home. Carey began calling out after him. Witness did not hear any m£ ticular word, but she was causing an annoyance" and after giving her the chance to go away \v;tness felt it was his duty to -take her away off the street. She was drunk. Witness sw the gentle men standing watching the proceedings At tV lock-up witness laid his charge, th« watchhouse keeper accepted it, and witness took the woman on to the cell. He went out to the back and Consiable Gleeson came outside and pairl "n ,„ inside, Davis; Dr Jeffcoat i S laying-' c & against you." Witness went in, and saw tV doctor and others there. Dr Jeffcoat retaari-p'rt " You are not lit to wear a uniform I'll w «7,,,' see tbat before the J.I"?, in the mornine " \vr ness replied "Very well, siij" and Dr Jeffcoat and his friends weut away. Dr Jeffcoat 1*; 1 . charge to the watchhouse keeper in UtnLl's presence. Ho satd nothing about witness kicking -cue womau in his (witness's) presence Dr

Jeffcoat never spoke about the charge. • Witness knew the women by sight, and knew they were bad characters, but had never arrested them befove. Tho tall woman was present when the amn.ll one was knocked down. Witness could not very well push the woman off with his hands, they bninn both full.

To Mr Solomon : The macintosh worn by witness was not buttoned; Witness1 denied tbat the doctor charged him with lacking the woman- in tbe v.'atchhouse. Witness thought by ttfe way Dr Jeffcoat and his friends came into the station they were merry themselves. Did n«t hear the woman say anylhing about kicks. What she said •was something about it being a shame. The little woman was on ,the outside of tbe pavement. Witness wa3 right in front of and close to her, :»nd it was impossible for him to kick her on the back. The woman was struck on th« hip and v/» nt down very easily on her hands and knees. lo Mr Hanlon: Witness denied that he kicked the woman a second time. He had no grudge ag-iinst the woman whatever. This closed the evidence for the defence. His Worship, in giving his decision, said that to be satisfied that the defendant's evidence was an answer tc the charge he should have to conclude that five respectable mci bad come to the court conspiring, together to have the defendant cony lc ted . There'wera several discrepancies in their evidence, but they all agreed that a cowardly assault was-committed. Three witnesses i-aid that the defendant, gave the woman two blows with his leg, while the other two only spoke of one blow, but neither of them sworo that there was not a second blow. His Worship saw no re won to doubt the credibility of these five witnesses. They swore the kicks, or blows, were deliberately given, and it seemed to him that it i waR impossible they could have been mistaken. Defendant would be convicted and fined 50s and cnst3 (15s—the witnesses uot making any claim). His Worship added that the punishment wa3 lighter than it should be, but further punishment . would probably follow.