RESISTING THE POLICE.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XLIX, Issue 12600, 14 September 1905, Page 7

RESISTING THE POLICE.

The. case (paitly heard on Wednesc|ay) in which James Wright was charged with drunkenness arichresisting the police was resumed #b <Uae Police Court yesterday morning.' -*

. Mr. H. P. Christie was called, and said that he first noticed accused near thp carriers' stand. Saw Sergeant ]Nforwood arrest the accused almost opposite the Charitable Aid Board office, Wright had a bicycle with him, and from his appearance:;he'thought thei-e was no-ti-mg about*,|idjn to warrant ;his arrest. - Tjn liispe^tor^^Kiely: Nothing occurrecl. to dji|^(flii attention to accused/,-! who Av^igul^.- going to jump , ¥ on hisi: Lieyclo; wheif- Jie was -arrest^/*' Could sec tl^at accused had had liquor. • -, His: .Worship convicted the defendant of drunkenness and fined him ss. and costs/ ■,■-..-. • .-■'.-

In giving judgment on the second charge, his Worship, said: I have determined that Wright was'drunk; The evidence was perfectly overwhelming 'on that po:ait. Sutherland, Cartman, and McLeod all more or less said the same thing, that he was under the influence ot: liquor, as they .mildly phrased it. I am not going to add one to the innumerable definitions of when a man i i drunk. Many, to my mind, are frivolous and foolish, and none of them of much Value. In dealing; with all cases of drunkenness, to be "under the influence of liquor" is the same to mo arj being "drunk." A man who is perceptibly and visibly under the influenco of drink, I regard as drunk. I sco no difference between the terms at all. It seems to me exactly the same. The difficulty in the whole situation appearn to me to arise from this- point, which ban been directly raised: Did Sergeant Norwood exercise a wise discretion in arresting this man in the condition in which he was in, or was he indiscreet in doing so? That is the issue involved. Mr. Hogg cited some law on resisting the police1, which I don't think was gcod law as applied to this case. What is the duty of a man when arrested by a constable? I understood Mr. Hogg to say (do not let me misrepresent him) that it would be the duty of a man to resist if he were wrongfully arrested.

Mr. Hogg: Yes, sir. Mr. Stanford: That in certainly not good law. His duty is to submit to his arrest and not constitute himself a judgo and jury, and say "he has no right to arrest me, therefore I will resist with ail my might." That is not law, thank goodness. His. duty is to tako the necessary means afterwards to clear his character and show he was wrongfully arrested. In this case, the defendant, unfortunately, I fhink, took tho law into his own hands and violently and determinedly resisted arrest. In my opinion, Sergeant Norwood exercised r, very wise discretion in arresting W right. I wish publicly to compliment hun en his action. He did exactly what was right. Ho had seen the defendant stagger and lurch along Ridgy/ay street footpath for some distance, and narrowly escape breaking a couple of windows. Ho then saw him attempt, and tail and attempt again to mount his bicycle. I say that not merely was he exercising a wise discretion in arresting \V right, but ho would have been distinctly wrong had ho not at once and promptly interfered. Tho fine I am gams to impose is not a very heavy one, because the. expenses are considerable, and I do not wish to overburden defendant. His conduct, was such as to render r. heavy fino possible. I will imposo a fino of £2 and costs, which amount to £3 125., made up as follows: Bell 10s. 6d., Jones los., Sutherland 10s. 6d., Dr. Fenwick £1 Is., Court costs B.s.