THE RECENT SCENE IN HIGH STREET.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17321, 22 May 1918, Page 3

THE RECENT SCENE IN HIGH STREET.

TO TBB EDITOR. Sib, —With your permission I ■would like to make a few comments on the above case, premising that my remarks are based on the reports of the disturbance appearing in the papers, as 1 have no personal knowledge of what took place. First as to the charge ot drunkenness, Constables Hart, M'Rae, Sivyer, and Boer all maintained that the accused was drunk. Sergeant Shanahan went a step further and said the man was "mad drank." Mr Watson and Miss Bowden (the barmaid) asserted that the man was not drunk, but excitable. Miss Bowden also stated that, in reply to a question by the accused as to whether he was drunk, one of the constables said "No." The- evidence of the civilian -witnesses on this point is not given. The in his decision, stated that the accused was not in a " state of drunkenness," and dismissed the charge. Now, I would just like to ask in what position do the constables stand who stated that he was drunk, and the sergeant who even went further and asserted that he was "mad drunk"? In this connection one would like to know why Constables Sivyer and Beer were sent to the cell to see this man. Next as to lie charge of using obscene language. Possibly I may not be acquainted with the fine points of the law on the subject, but I have usually seen in euch cases that the accused person must speak in a tone audible to passers-by. The fact that the constables were the only persons who heard the language made use of, and that the civilian witnesses did not know the reason for the accused's arrest, proves that whatever was said was said in a very low tone, and .is further proof that the man not drunk. Let it stand at that. Now as to the more 6erious charge of resisting the police. I may here state that I think it foolish on the part of any person to resist after being arrested, and the onlookers should not encourage him to do so, as it only makes matters worse for the arrested one. In this charge the police £-'donor was to the effect that no undue violenoe was used, while the civilian witnesses maintained that unnccessarv force was used on the part of the police, 'Mr Currie stating that in a wide experience he had never seen an arrest mado where moro violence had been used. Jr. this charge the weight of evidence fand that unbiassed, whereas the police evidence •would certainly be biassed), it seems to mo was against the police, yet the magistrate adoqoted the view of the ( pblico, and decided that no undue force had been used. Thero is just one other matter. During the hearing, and while Mr Currie was giving evidence, the sub-inspector went out of his way to perpetrate a poor joke on the faet that he has lost one of his eyes. The eub-inspector asked the witness if it a fact that lie had only one eye. The fact was admitted. The Sub-inspertor tVirn said: "That accounts for the fact that you could only see one side of this rns<\" Now. Mr Currie, who was a Sen forth Highand saw crinsidernblo srrvice at the befrinninsr of the war. presumably lost his eye in the service of his oountry, and it ili becomes the sub-inspecto". or any other person, to sneer at his loss.—l am. etc.. OmzEx.