THE POWLEY ASSAULT.

Observer, Volume XVI, Issue 911, 13 June 1896, Page 9

THE POWLEY ASSAULT.

Mr Northcroft Speaks Strongly

The charge against George Powley of assaulting William J. Geddis, editor of the Observes, by coming behind him in the street and striking him on the head and face with a heavy stick was called in the Police Court on Tuesday laßt.

Mr Theo. Cooper appeared for the complainant, and Mr Cotter for the defence, while Mr E. Mahony represented the Rescue Society, and watched the case in the interests of the two girlß who had been molested by Powley. Mr Cotter said he would plead guilty to the assault under very provoking circumstances.

Mr Cooper described the assault, which he said was a cowardly and brutal one. Powley gave the object of his attack not a single word of warning. He struck his blows from behind, in a savage manner, with a heavy stick, and it was fortunate that he did not stand in the dock that day on a charge of mnrder instead of on the less serious charge. The provocation pleaded by Powley consisted of the insertion of a paragraph in the Obseever charging the defendant with improper conduct towards certain girls late at night. That Court could not enter into the truth or otherwise of these statements. The proper course for Mr Powley to have pursued, if he thought these statements were untrue, was to have taken proceedings against the editor of the Observer, in which case Mr Geddis would have been prepared, as he still was prepared, to establish the truth of the charges. Mr Cotter said the assault had been described by his friend as cowardly, but could anything be more cowardly than for a writer in the public press to make a charge against a respectable man, on information he had received and without any reference whatever to the party against whom the charge wa3 made ? Was that not striking him behind his back ? He had yet to learn that there was another Court in New Zealand, and that presided over by the editor of the Observer, to try anyone, and without hearing any evidence. These girls had their remedy, if Mr Powley did annoy them, but no charge whatever had been made by them, and not even an apology asked for. Powley neither molested nor interfered with these girls in any way at all. Two persons were talking to him in Victoria-street, and shortly after they left him he heard a slight scream. He turned and saw two girls, and went up and said to them, ' Don't be afraid girls, I. will take care of you,' or words to that effect. He would call Powley, who would swear that this was all that happened. Mr Cooper : In which case, 1 shall ask the Court to allow me to call the two girls, both of whom are present,and who will prove to Your Worship that Powley did molest them and that every word of the story published in the Observer was quite trne. His Worship : If I hear one witness I shall certainly hear all. Mr Cotter proceeded to argue, that even if the occurrence did happen as alleged neither the Observer nor any other paper had a right to publish Powley's name in connection with it. He asked, for example, what His Worship would say of a newspaper that published the name of a man who was punished for a first offence of drunkenness.

His Worship : I would say it served the man right. He should not have got drunk.

Mr Cotter thought, however, that if a man paid the penalty of his offence the newspapers had no right to publish his name.

' Then,' said His Worship, ' in that case you would argue that no names should be given in the newspapers of persons accused of criminal offences.'

Mr Cotter decided not to call Powley in view of the fact that this would involve the calling of the girls and other witnesses.

Mr Northcroft said that if he held that an article like that afforded a man a right to assault another, the precedent would be a very dangerous one. A person might just as well say that a witness who had been annoyed by a solicitor in crossexamination had a right to assault that solicitor outside the court. There was a regulation in the Civil Servcie that no public servant must reply to a paragraph which appeared in the public press, and it was a very good rule, too. It was recognised in the Service as best to take no notice of such paragraphs. If there had been no truth in the paragraph it should have been treated with silent contempt, but his experience was that when a man squirmed there was something behind it — some truth in the paragraph. And, if Powley thought himself aggrieved, he had his remedy elsewhere When he read the paragraph in question first, he took it to mean that Mr Powley kept his girls working too late at night, and that he had better beware of the Factory Inspector. He did not at the time think it was intended to mean that Mr Powley interfered with the girls. It was a mean and cowardly

thing to go behind a man's back and strike him, as Powley had done. If a man intended to assault another he usually went before hiß face and gave the man a chance to def end. himself . He did not strike at the other from behind as Powley had done. Looking at the size of the two parties the assault was cowardly. Powley had also behaved in a cowardly way by dragging his wife into a row in a crowded thoroughfare. Aright-minded man endeavoured to protect his wife and keep her out of brawls and disturbances whatever might happen to himself. He could not understand Powley, holding the position as an employer of labour his counsel said he did, starting a brawl in Queen-street on a night when the street was usually crowded with people. We prided ourselves as a nation on the freedom of the press, and such assaults as the one in question, under such circumstances, could not "be tolerated.

Powley must pay a fine of £5 and the costs of the case.

The above is a brief epitome of the remarks of Hia Worship, Mr Northcroft. They contrast strongly with the ' cooked ' report of those remarks in Tuesday evening's Star. But then the Observer — like many others— knows it is useless to expect fair play from ' the Star.