THE ALBION ROW.

Observer, Volume XVIII, Issue 1025, 20 August 1898, Page 2

THE ALBION ROW.

A Police Conspiracy.

The sequel to the row in the Albion Hotel between three police constables and an equal number of civilians constitutes yet another grave indictment of the police administration in Auckland. Bat there have been so many of these indictments. The McKay case was a serious one, the notorious South case furnished another, and now we have the Albion case as the final one of many indictments. "What is the meaning of it all ? Is it the constables the mselves who are to blame, or the sy stem ? The Observes has urged again and again that the administration is at fault, and with this further scandal before us, we feel strongly that a change at the head of police affairs in Auckland is imperative, and that no reform can be expected without it.

The Albion affair is a most painful and unfortunate one. Three police constables in plain clothes were in a private bar drinking in defiance of the Regulations. Also, three civilians were in the bar, having their drinks, and from these civilians tbe police officers accepted cigars. Then an altercation arose, blows were struck, and strong language was used. Finally, the brawlers— police and civilians alike— were ordered out of the hotel by the lan dlord. The constables left the hotel together, but presently returned with a constable in uniform, whom they induced to airest Harris, one of the civilians. Two of the other civilians were also arrested.

Alfred Harris was subsequently charged at the Police Court with drunkenness, resisting the police, and using obscene language, and James Porteous and James Murray with resisting Constable Mcßae in the execution of his duty. The constables involved in the affair were Meßae, Jackson and Scott, while the constable in uniform was a worthy though possibly unreflecting constable named Skinner Needless to say, the four constables unanimously and vigorously swore that Harris was drunk, that he used obscene language, and that all three men resisted the police. On the other hand, a number of independent and respectable witnesses contradicted the police story flatly, and some of them also said on oath that the police were the aggressors.

Space will not permit us to review the evidence. But, in passing, let us observe that if Harris was drnnk the three policemen sat by and allowed the hotel people to serve him with liquor, in defiance of the licensing law, without interfering. Moreover, they accepted his cigars from him. What kind of policemen were they at all? But Mr Hutchison, S.M., held that the constables, being in a hotel in plain clothes, and refreshing themselves, were not policemen at all for the time being, but simply ordinary individuals. Oonßeqaently, it was neither the duty nor the right of Mcßae and his comrades to arrest their adversaries in the brawl that happened. Therefore, the police were not resisted in the execution of their duty, and so far as Porteous and Murray were concerned, there was no resistance at all.

Then Mr Hutchison, who had given the evidence a very careful and patient hearing, proceeded to show that Harris's own acts, and the evidence of many independent wit-

nesses, proved conclusively that the man was not drank. Moreover, the arrest for drnnbenneßs did not take place at the time of the row, but subsequently ; it was consequently not a bona fide one, and was prompted by antecedent circumstances. Finally, with regard to the obscene language which was sworn ta by all the constables, His Worship found that Harris did not use the obscene language alleged, nor indeed- any obscene language.

His Worship concluded an exhaustive and logical summing-up intthese significant words. His opinion was that from the beginning to the end the constables were distinctly in the wrong, and. proceeded from bad to worse. They were young, and that might be some palliation for mere indiscretion, but when the indiscretion* proceeded to excess of authority, and from excesß of authority to positive wrongdoing, their youth conld not palliate it. It seemed to him that the feeling underlying their conduct was a feeling of loyalty to one's comrades. Comradeship was a splendid thing, but loyalty to the truth was a still better thing, and when loyalty to comrades prompted one to place that virtue in plain conflict with the ends of justice, it became not a virtue at all, but a positive and pernicious vice. The charges would be dismissed, and the defendants pronounced innocent and discharged.