OBSTRUCTING THE POLICE.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18453, 20 December 1929, Page 8

OBSTRUCTING THE POLICE.

SEQUEL TO STREET FRACAS. DANGEROUS MAN WHEN DRUNK. The sequel to a furious fight between a police constable and a man who was resisting arrest, in which the constauie was Kicked in the groin, and the man who was giving tne constable assitance was severely battered about, was heard yesterday morning in the iimaiu Police Court, before Mr C. R. Orr-Walker, S.M.

Allan Mitchell Aitchison was charged with (a) that at Timaru on December 14, he did steal an overcoat, valued at £5 ss, the property of Raymond Giles, (b) Did unlawfully assaun one Andrew Brown, acting in the aid of Constable Arthur Alexander in the execution of his duty, thereby committing an aggravated assault, (c) Did use obscene language in a public place, to wit Barnard Street, (d) Did Assault Arthur H. Alexander, police constable, when in execution of his duty, kicking him in the groin, (e) Did, on December 13, being a person against whom a prohibition order had been made, during the currency of such order enter licensed premises, d , Did on the 13th day of December at Timaru, being a person against whom a prohibition order had been made, during the currency of such order procure liquor. Accused who was represented by Mr L. M. Inglis, pleaded guilty to all the charges, and elected to be dealt witr> summarily.

Senior-Sergeant Gibsoh who conducted the case for the police, said that on the day previous to the arrest accused had smelt strongly of drink, and had been seen in the Grosvenor Hotel by Constable Alexander. When he had been approached accused had run away in the direction of the harbour. On the following night, the police received a report that an overcoat had been stolen from the skating rink, and on inquiries being made by Constable Alexander, who at the tW was in plain clothes, accused was found at the Scottish Society’s Hall in Bardnard Street, with a coat having the same appearance as the missing one. Accused, on being questioned by the constable, denied having stolen the coat, and gave a false name. Accused knew the constable well, even though he was In plain clothes. There was no doubt thnt accused had been drinking, and he had in his possession four bottles of oeer. With one of these he endeavoured to strike the constable and when a man, Andrew Brown, came to the constable’s assistance, accused aimed a blow at him. Eventually accused succeeded in kicking Constable Alexander in the groin, the constable sustaining an injury which might result in a rupture. Accused had twice, on previous occasions been convicted for assault, both cases being connected with the police. For one assault he received five years imprisonment, for injuring the constable so badly that he had to retire from the force. Rev. H. T. Peat said that he had known accused for a year or fifteen months, and he knew the family intimately. Accused was a mafried man with a family, and was a hard-working man, who had given excellent service to his employers, who were well satisfied with his work, and were only too willing to take him back, if he was given another chance. Unfortunately if he got under the influence of liquor, he became very pugnacious, and ready to fight one and all who stood in his way. He was' always very excitable under these conditions, but if kept away from its influence he was a thoroughly honest and respectable citizen. If Aitchison was imprisoned his familv would be destitute, and it would fall on the State and the Church to support them. Witness said that if accused were given another chance, he (witness) would do everything in his power, with the co-oper-ation of the Probation Officer, to see that accused kept straight and behaved himself.

Senior-Sergeant Gibson said that in accused’s case it was not all the fault of drink. Accused had a most violent, ungovernable temper, and even when he had been in prison, he had shown fight to the constables. He had on one occasion escaped from gaol, and his bad career had started In 1916 with a theft.

For accused, Mr Inglis said that on one occasion accused had i:een incapacitated through suffering from u broken leg, and had been out of work for five months. He had taken to drink after recovering, and his wife had threatened to take out a prohibition order against him. This she did, and accused was very annoyed about this. As regards the theft of the overcoat, counsel said that accused had left home with a coat, and he had taken so much liquor that he could not distinguish between one coat and another, and he probably took the wrong c\e from the skating rink. The two coats v’ere alike, and accused wua at the time not responsible for his actions.

Mr Robinson (Probation Officer* said that accused had taken out a prohibition order in 1926. and since then he had been well behaved while under this order.

The Magistrate said that if accused obtained liquor he became obviously a dangerous man, and he became annoyed if any one stopped him getting the drink, including his wife. He said that he had a duty to the public, and could not overlook seriou3 offences such as this. Drink was at the bottom of it, and accused knew that. He had already been severely punished, but he still persisted In tak ing liquor. For the theft of the overcoat accused would have to come up for sentence in twelve months. If he touched drink in that period, he would be sentenced to twelve months imprisonment or three years probation. For the asasult on Browm accused would get two months’ imprisonment. The Magistrate said thai it was. a credit to Brown that he had come to the constable’s assistance. The police must be supported in the execution of their duties. For using obscene language accused would be fined £5. and cn the charges of breach of prohibition order, he would be convicted and discharged. For the assault on Constable Alexander, the Magistrate said he would adlourn the sentence until March 20. If accused had behaved himself up till then it would be further adjourned. If not he would be dealt with by the Supreme Court.