BORBUGH INSPESTOR ASSAULTED.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 89, 3 June 1911, Page 7

BORBUGH INSPESTOR ASSAULTED.

I. V A X ANGH-V CYCLIST, INSPECTOR BA DLY KNOCK RO AHOVI. AI. the Tii • 11_>; ir • I r;i fcc’s Court yesterday morning .Joseph Ralston -fours was ffnod 5» ji«l ousts 7s lor 1 i:i\-i 11 «.•; on May 20i’ll rill-ion a bicycle on :i tootpath on Pembroke Road. Baler on tlm same defendant pleaded not guilty to a charge of having o:i tho rami' day assaulted William Barlow, Borough inspector. Mr Spence appeared for informant and .Mi' Malono for defendant.. Tom L. Paget, medical practitioner, said ho saw Harlow on May ‘2lst. His in juries consisted of two block eyes, bruises on tho temple, abrasions on the nose and right ear, bruises on the hack of tho head on the right side and on the right side of the throat below the chin. The injuries wore consistent with being caused by a, series of blows. William Harlow, Borough inspector, the informant, said that- on tho day in question he was proceeding up Pembroke Road on ids usual round. It was about. 5.15 p.m. Ho was on tho right side of the road. When defendant came in sight lie was about 200 yards away on tho opposite side. Ho was riding his bicycle on tho footpath. Witness crossed over the road and put up his hand. Defendant raised Ins head and saw who witness was, then putting on extra pace. Witness stepped aside, but defendant ran into bint with bis bicycle. W ilness fell to tho ,/.round and then doferdant started punching witness,-de-livering several heavy blows. W hen witness rose up defendant hit him another blow on tho throat and, after making an insulting remark, rode away on Iris bicycle. by Mr Malone:- Witness did not suppose himself to have the right to arrsst offenders. At the time he did not know Jones, and ho crossed tho road to stop him for the purpose of getting his name and address. The offence took place at the corner of Hamlet Street. At no time did witness put his hand on defendant. He could not say whether or not defendant fell to the ground when the collision occurred. Ho could not remember being on top of the bicycle cr being pulled off it by Jones. Jones did ‘not ask witness what ho meant by bis conduct. When he got up ho said: “I know you.” He knew Jones by sight. The whole occurrence was over in two or three minutes.

By Mr Spence: He was fairly certain' that none of bis injuries were caused by the bicycle.

Reginald George Burgess, twelve years and ton months, a schoolboy who lives with Ids parents on Pembroke Road, said that on the day in question ho was proceeding up the road with a cow when he saw liarlow coming along. Tic corroborated the version of the affair given by Barlow. There was, he said, nobody else about at tho time.

By Ml- Malone: Jones landed on lus feet when the collision occurred. The bicycle was at tho side of the men.

Joseph Ralston Jones, defendant-, said that when he came close to Hamlet Street, riding along at about six miles an hour, a man rushed out from the corner, and both fell to the ground. Witness did nob know who the man was, his hat being over bis face. Witness asked why the man had thrown him off Ids bicycle, and hit him several blows. Informant 101 l over tho bicycle. Witness lifted him off the bicycle and then rode off home. Witness made every endeavour to avoid i-he man, but it was impossible to do so. Ho was not an expert rider—ho might ride a bicycle once in six months. Witness recognised Barlow when he lifted him off tho bicycle. r '.By .Mr Spence: It was not correct that Barlow crossed tho road just, before the collision—ho came out from behind tho coiner. Tho tale ol Burgess was entirely untrue. Witness did nob strike Barlow on tho ‘ground or while ho was getting up. Barlow got up before 'witness. Mr Spence: Within ten minutes/of tho occurrence did yon come into town and say: “I put it into the until Ho cried for mercy” ?

Mr Malono objected to the question. Ho did Dipt think counsel should ask a question about something oji which ho had not called evidence. After 'considerable argument Mr Spence decided not to press bis question.

The S.M. said that interruptions by counsel during cross-examination were highly undesirable, in view of tho wide powers of cross-examination enjoyed by counsel. .101)11 Braamigan, junior, said be was just opposite where the accident occurred. Ho said he saw Barlow standing round the corner in Hamlet Street. When Jones arrived at. the corner Barlow walked out from the corner and pushed Jones off his bicycle. Both fell down, [fallow getting to his feet first. Jones then hit him several times. Witness did nothear Barlow' call on Jones to stop.

Isy Mr Spence: Witness was about thirty yards away at the time. Ho did not suggest that Hallow deliberately pushed Jones over. Witness had as good an opportunity as Burgess of seeing what happened. He was not prepared to say how Jones was thrown io the ground. ' j the S.'JVt., summing up, said the assault, was admitted, hut it was held to bo justifiable. To Ids mind ibo evidence was not so contradictory as it might appear lo lie. It appeared that the witnesses for the one side saw a certain amount of the incident and (he other side only saw another set of actions. For instance, ho (the S.M.) thought Barlow was truthful when he said he put up his hand—Jones only said he did not see this done. lie could see no harm in an officer secreting himself for (ha purpose of catching an offender. There was no evidence to show that Barlow had acted improperly in any way. Barlow was quite justified in calling on a. man to stop when riding on the footpath. If any other person had come on! of the gate in question Jones would have been liable for any injuries suffered. In extreme cases there might have been a charge of manslaughter. People who broke Ibo law by riding on the footpath should exercise extreme care. The evidence seemed lo show thal Jones was proceeding at a. good pace. To bis mind there was no provoeaiion for I ho assault—it merely came to this, that Jones held that there was provocation when smneoofly g"l i Ids road while he was doing an illegal act. In the ease of an officer he should lie dealt with properly if he is over-officious or acts in any other improper manner. A ieasonahlo construction had to bo pal on by-laws and prosecutions should not. follow when the offence would not endanger the life of man or beast. Hut il anybody is proceeded against for an offence, everybody should be proceeded against. Ho felt sure that if an inspector saw a man wheeling his bicycle along a. side road fool pat h to escape a patch of metal he would not take proceedings, although ho would do so if the offence was committed in the main street. The public; should understand that it was improper to assault public ollicets, nt) matter how distasiteliil it limy be lb have them

carrv nr, t their duty. Defendant would be lined x'.o, with cccJ-a ~J .is. •V sum of t:l was allowed out of the fine to be paid to Barlow to reimburse him for expenditure on medical attendance. Three weeks was given in which to pay the line.