ASSAULT AlLEGED

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19126, 22 September 1936, Page 2

ASSAULT AILEGED

INCIDENT IN CLUB

CLAIM ON CONSTABLE

JUDGMENT FOE DEFENCE

\ -civil action was taken against a member of the Gisborne police lont- m the Magistrate’s Court to-dax lot -bio damages for injuries suffered m an alleged assault m theCosmopoluan Club oil Atav 30. The plaintiff was Frederick Chailes O’Connor, described _ a public works employee (.Mr. D. M - j. I 1 the 'defendant Charles Dunford King, acting detective (Mr. J. S. Wauchopp The plaintiff claimed that on May ob lie Was unlawfully assaulted and beaten in the passageway of the Cosmopolitan Club bv the defendant, whereby the plaintiff suffered a laceration m the region of the left angle ot the mouth involvin'-' the mucous membrane, and toi this the plaintiff claimed CIO damages. \fter hearing the case for the plaintiff, Mr SF. L. Walton. SAL, gave judgment for file defendant with costs, saying that he did not believe the plaintiff. Mr. lies said that the plaintiff was standing 'in Gladstone road on Saturday, Maw 30, -when he saw a member ot the Cosmopolitan.Cluh, Rohan/ drive.past in his tar to the club. As plaintiff wished to ,>ee Rohan, plaintiff went to the club. Rar- Nicholson answered the door, and invited plaintiff into the chib, stating that-Rohan had just gone into the telephone box. Plaintiff walked to toe telephone box and told Rohan that he would wait- orttiide. When returning to the door; plaintiff was accosted by the defendant. who told plaintiff to get out and if Hot he (defendant) would throw him out. ' Defendant, then put the plaintiff out into the street, and struck blows at plaintiff, who went- to the police station, to Inspector Martin’s house and then to a doctor. Th£ proper course of Nicholson, Mr. lies continued, would have been to show the plaintiff into the strangers’ room, and the proper course of the defendant was to inquire the plaintiff’s business and show him into the strangers’ room, if necessary.? It was not lawful for a person to bo thrown out of the club. A member of the club had no right to take proceedings sgainst a stranger for. trespass. If the stranger was not desired on the premises, the member should ask an official of the club to request the stranger to leave, and the stranger must be given ampli opportunity to leave before force was used, which must be sufficient only to nut him out. Hie Police Force Act, added counsel, provided that notice must, be given before action was taken against a member acting in the course of his duty. Counsel did not know whether the defendant was acting in the course of his duty. ; PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE

Plaintiff, in evidence, said he resided in 38 Lyndhurst street, and was a contractor. When he was returning 'to the door after interviewing Rohan, the defendant asked plaintiff; “what the he was doing there?'’ and told him to get out before he throw’ him 6ut. Upon saying that, the defendant put plaintiff out. Several members had heard the words, and came.- to the door. Immediately plainCff told the members what was the matter defendant clouted plaintiff over the head with his fist. Rohan had a*few words with defendant, who said that he intended to chastise the plaintiff. The plaintiff, then.... asked defendant to go to the police station •with ;him. Defendant struck the plaintiff’ again, and after witness asked defendant to go to the police station, the defendant took hold of him by the lapels of the coat and dragged him along the footpath, and it was only by the intervention of members of the club that .the plaintiff and .defendant were separated. ■Constable Gedye, witness continued, came from, the police .station..and.de: fondant said that it was a personal matter, and went up to Gladstone road. Plaintiff then proceeded to the police station, but several present in the" crowd told him nor to be a fool, and not to take a case against the defendant, but the plaintiff persisted, and wont to the police station,’ where hd saw Sergeant Campagnolo and plaintiff asked if he could see the inspector. Plaintiff then went to the inspector's house, and later to a doctor. Plaintiff's tooth had gone through his jaw, and his mouth was lacerated. STATEMENT TO DETECTIVE In reply t;o Mr. Waueliop, plaintiff said that the alleged assault occurred between 3 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. lie reported in the watchhouse at 3.45 p.m. Before going to the doctor, the plaintiff made a statement to Detective MeWhirter, whom the plaintiff also saw. later. The outside of his face was not lacerated at that time, but was damaged inside by his teeth entering his lip. The first time the defendant struck the plaintiff was with his open hand. Air. Wauchop: Mas that when you tried to get through the door again? —I havo been in-ihe club only once, straight in and straight out. When Constable King spoke to you, did you not say, .“What the h ’s that to do with you'?''—No. [ said, “That is no business of yours.” Was there no reason why Constable King should have spoken to vou?— No, '

Did you not say io Constable King that he had been victimising you and you were going to get your own back? —■'N.o, not then. It was when lie called at my father’s shop 10 ask him to use his influence to call the ease off. You have had trouble with the police?—Yes, for over two years.

What was it ?—I refuse to answer that.

Witness added that the defendant came to the house frequently and inquired where the plaintiff was. Ho had got on very well with oilier members of the force. The only trouble he had had with the police was with Detective; McLeod and Constable King. That trouble had extended over a considerable time. He added that they had tried to pin things on to him, but failed. Mr. "Wauehop: On some occasions did the police beat you? —No, not on all of them.

PERSECUTION ALLEGED Your suggestion is that- there is perse cution by Detective King against you?Yes. lie does not come direct to me but; to some of my relations.

To further questions, plaintiff replied that ho went, willingly out of the dub when requested to by tlie defendant. Plaintiff was walking behind the defendant; the whole of the time, and neither bad stopped walking until they passed through the door. He was not struck in the passageway but on the street in front of about 20 spectators. Mr. Wnnotion: Do you remember tell-

ing Constable King that you intended to fix him?—No. ! have never said that. Where were you on March 6, 1935, and six months to a year after that?— That is a question I am not prepared to answer.

Mr. lies objected, saying that the question seemed, to have been directed against previous convictions.

His Worship ruled that Mr. Waueliop was entitled to ask the question. Mi*. Waueliop : Your record is. so bad that your presence* inside a club or any other place is not, desirable? — If I have business in a club. I have a right to be there. In 1924 you, were convicted of false pretences?—(.lvor a period of 11 years, I was convicted several times. In the first place in this court 1 was protecting others because 1 refused to divulge their names.

In reply to further questions from Air. Waueliop. plaintiff admitted convictions for theft, breaking and entering, and theft, and false pretences, the convictions being made, in Auckland. Hamilton and Gisborne. lip, was a public works employee up io (be, end of last month.

Was it not a fact, that you left Horn rise: the other men would not work with you?—No. 1 was dismissed because I was told that my services were not. satisfactory. You were carried down from the works, and taken to the hospital, and they could find nothing wrong with you?-—1 left the hospital at. my own free will. I hero was nothing wrong with you? — No. 1 was sick.

Have you not. alleged that yon have been victimised bv the Public Works Department?—Yes, and 1 sent a letter to the Minister, and T was reinstated. NAMES SUPPR ESSED.

Michael Bohan, gasworks employee, said that; lie had. arranged for the plaintiff to ring witness on' Saturday afternoon. When using the telephone at the club th.nt afternoon, witness was fold that someone wished to see him outside. <Going outside, plaintiff said that the. defendant had Hit him. Defendant replied that if lie had hit him the plaintiff would not have been standing up. Nicholson, O'Connor, Moss, the dci'en.dant:, and a lady standing beside a et«r, and some oilier men further down tie road were present.

Albert Eranefs Pitcher, barber, said he had met the plaintiff in tin- sport of boxing. Witness was standing outside the PowGr Hoard office and saw a number of hum across the street outside the club. He saw some blows struck, but. die 1 , not know who was struck. Witness did not wish to geL mixed up in brsiwls, mid ducked off. A further wit ness, when asked what ho saw, said that there really was not much to see. Wilnoss was about (id fr. away. Ho said that he had told Mr. lies previously that his evidence would lie practically useless, and did not sec why lie should Ho dragged into it. Witness, at the conclusion of his evidence, asked that, his name should be suppressed, because of inconvenience ’t would cause his family. His Worship agreed to suppress the witness’ name, saying that his presence in court, was unnecessary. The wife of the previous witness said that she. could nut see much from whore she stood. She had her children to mind, and was not very interested. Mr. Tics intimated that that closed his case. His Worship then, gave his judgment. “1 do not believe the. plaintiff,” lie said. “Judgment will be for the defendant.” Costs for the defendant totalled C2 19s.