Otago Daily Times
Constable Parker, who was so brutally assaulted on Saturday evening, continued to progress slowly, but favorably yesterday, according to the last report from the Hospital. The two men in custody as the perpatrators of the outrage, William Marriott and Edmund Santy, were yesterday brought up at the Resident-Magistrate's Court; the charge against them being that, while he was in the execution of his duty, they assaulted Parker, thereby doing him great actual bodily harm. The Court House was crowded; and Mr Barton, who appeared, for the prisoners, taking advantage of that fact, attempted a characteristic defence by attacking the Press, for, naturally enough, giving an account of the murderous affair. This gentleman should be taught by the Bench, if his own good taste do not suggest it, to keep to the case he has in hand, and not attempt to raise spurious sympathy on false pretences. The affair was of so serious a nature that the Press, as a matter of course, described it. The allusions made by Mr Barton to other cases were simply puerile, and the exhortation to Mr Strode not to allow himself to be guided by outside influences was an impertinence which we were surprised the worthy magistrate did not resent. Barristers should not be allowed to spout claptrap nonsense for the delectation of crowded police-courts. We should recommend Mr Barton to read an article in a late Saturday Review, in which the eloquence of police-court counsel was fittingly done justice to. The only witness examined yesterday was Constable Sutton, who apprehended Santy. He was subjected to a long cross-examination which resulted in nothing, except to show, what Mr Barton afterwards stated, that the defence meant, to be relied on is that Santy did not really take part in the attack as a principal. In the paragraph which Mr Barton so senselessly attacked as an outrage upon the license of the Press, we took care to do Santy the justice of stating that before the Constable spoke in the matter, he advised his drunken companion — who is, we believe, a groom in his stables — to be quiet and not get into trouble; a thing of which Santy will assuredly have the benefit hereafter, if any benefit is derivable therefrom. The prisoners were remanded for a week; the magistrate promising to consider Mr Barton's application that Santy might be released on bail, which it was said could be procured to any reasonable amount. We have fully reported the proceedings of yesterday. -12/5/1863.
THE ASSAULT UPON CONSTABLE PARKER.
William Marryatt and Edmund Santy were indicted for having on the 10th May, in Dunedin, feloniously assaulted John White Parker, with intent to murder him; the second, third, and fourth counts charged the intent respectively to being to maim, to disfigure, and to do grievous bodily harm; while the fifth charged the assault as being with intent to resist lawful apprehension, the said John White Parker being a constable in the discharge of his duty. Mr Barton appeared for the prisoners.
The Crown Prosecutor, in stating the case, said that Santy carried on business here as a horse dealer. What Marryatt was did not appear, but he had more than once been in the custody of Constable Parker. For many years there was no crime committed here that required the presence of a Judge of the Supreme Court. Although crimes were afterwards committed, they were mostly by run-away sailors; so that up to the time the diggings were discovered, crime was, in fact, scarcely known here. On the discovery of the diggings, the Government immediately organised a police force; and by means of drafts from the excellent force established in Victoria, they had, at the time when the Dunstan was discovered a most efficient body of officers — sufficient, as time had proved, for maintaining peace, securing life and property, and dispensing with the necessity for any military force. He believed that no military forces would have been sent for, but from a fear that Chinese diggers would flock here, and that a collision with the other diggers would ensue. The efficiency, courage, and ability of the police force gave us security for life and property; for the protection of society they risked their lives; and it was quite right that the protection of the law should be thrown around them when they were assailed. It was only fair to say that he believed no case of violence equal to the present had previously occurred in the Province. The Crown Prosecutor detailed the circumstance of the case, explained the law, and called the following witnesses: —
John White Parker: I am a police constable, I was in High street on the morning of Sunday the 10th May, shortly after one o'clock, and I was passing along Manse street I noticed three men coming out of an oyster saloon near the Vestibule of the Theatre. One of them went up towards the Cutting; but the other two I saw remained in front of the saloon. They were talking so loud as to attract my attention at a considerable distance — in fact, creating a disturbance. I heard a small portion of what passed. I heard the words, "If you don't choose to take that you shall have no more." I went up, told them that was no hour in the morning for such a disturbance and recommended them to go home quietly. They went a very short distance when Marryatt turned and told me to go to b.... . I knew both prisoners, and had had Marryatt in custody previously. I followed up sufficiently to watch their proceedings; and on getting a little further, Marryatt used more obscene language, so much so that I went up and said I would arrest him. They were then in front of the sale yard in High street. I arrested Marryatt. He did not at the moment resist, but Santy, in a threatening manner, said, "You'd better let him go." I replied that he had better not interfere with the discharge of my duty as I should apprehend him also. He said, "This is my place, and you had better get out of it quick." Upon that I apprehended him too, collaring him with my right hand, having Marryatt by the left. Santy then appeared to lean forward and touch the gate with his shoulder; it opened with, his weight; it is an inclined plane; and by his weight and a push from Marryatt I lost my balance and fell just at the threshhold of the gate, but inside. My cap tell off, and Santy caught me by the hair of the head with his right hand and dragged me three or four yards down the place. A quantity of hair was pulled out — the bare patch remains. The next thing, I got a kick on the corner of the left eye, from Marryatt; I knew I was cut with iron, and thought it a heavily shod shoe. The prisoner on my right then kicked me; and I put up my left hand to save myself, and just succeeded in stopping another blow at the eye, but received it on the hand. It inflicted a deep cut, and was undoubtedly caused by iron. The rowel of a spur would be a very likely weapon to inflict such a wound. Marryatt said, "Murder the b... b...!" and Santy said "Yes, give it unto him." I saw that resistance was of no avail. I called for assistance loudly, and asked "Are ye any kind of men at all? Have ye no mercy in you? To kick a man down?" and the answer was "Mercy for you, you b.... b...? No, none," I received no blows about the body; but both my eyes and my mouth wore completely closed. After a time two men came into the yard; and I think one of them struck a match. I think so from the sound. The prisoners ceased kicking me; and further assistance having arrived, a gentleman came up and said "Is this a policeman lying here?" I said "Yes; will you help me up, for I'm very weak from loss of blood." I was assisted up and helped, to walk to the watch house, but there swooned, and when I came to consciousness, I was in bed. Almost immediately, Dr Hocken came and attended to me. I was removed to the Hospital the same day, and remained there 20 days — from the 10th to the 30th. The night of the assault was clear and moonlight.
There was a very little rain about one o'clock, but it cleared again, and was quite clear. I did not pay particular attention to Santy's features; but Marryatt I know perfectly well. I have no doubt that Santy was the second man. I wore my uniform night duty coat. I produce the hat which was picked up and put upon my head by those who helped me to the watch-house. The stains are of blood from my eye. The coat is stained but with blood from my nose and eye principally. I had no opportunity of drawing my baton.
By Mr Barton: I had not been drinking that night; I swear that I am not in the habit of drinking, more than any ordinary man. I decline to say whether the police defaulters' sheet shows that drinking is my particular vice. In the Hospital I had brandy once only on a Friday night. The oyster saloon does not exist now. It stood between the Vestibule and the Sale Yard. I swear that I had given no provocation before Marryatt turned and used the obscene language I have sworn to.
Re-examined: I was visited regularly by the sergeant on my beat, up to the time of this occurrence.
Thomas M. Hocken: I am a legally qualified medical practitioner. I was called to attend Parker about half-past one on Sunday morning, the 10th ultimo. His head and face was very much contused; there was a small lacerated wound at the outer angle of the left eye; the eyes were closed by swelling; and the head was covered with blood. He had also a small wound on the back of one of the hands. I put three sutures in the wound near the eye. (A spur produced.) The rowl of the spur produced would be a very likely instrument to cause such a wound. There was no broken wound on the crown of the head — only contusion. I considered the injuries very severe, but not at the time dangerous. I saw him again in the afternoon, about 15 hours after my first visit. He was then in much the same state; and there being no sufficient means of treatment at the station, I recommended his removal to the hospital. In the Sunday morning immediately after seeing Parker, I examined one of the prisoners; I do not know which; and I found a contused wound on his head from which there had been a very slight bleeding.
By Mr Barton: It is not likely at all that a blow from a policeman's baton on the top or side of the head would cause a man's nose to bleed. It must be a smart wound to break the skin. A previous want of temperance might retard recovery in a man wounded like Parker; it would cause a medical man to give a cautious opinion as to the result. I certainly would not swear even after microscopical examination whether blood stains submitted to me came from a horse's blood or human blood; but a man's hair and a horse's hair would be very different under microscopic examination.
By the Judge: I think that a person thoroughly skilled in the use of the microscope can very rarely distinguish between the stain of human blood and that of a horse. (For the Crown Prosecutor): I saw a spur on the Sunday morning, and saw on it what I thought to be a fresh stain of blood. The spur was in the possession of a policeman who accompanied me to my chambers; and the officer also had a boot in his possession.
Mr Barton objected that there was no foundation laid for this evidence.
The Judge concurred, and the evidence was stopped for the present.
In reply to a question asked for Mr Barton, the witness said: I remember examining a boot and a spur — not whether the spur was on the boot.
Wm. Wilkie: I am a seaman on board the Geelong. I remember the morning of the 10th May. I was in High street between twelve and one o'clock, close to the Vestibule. I saw three or four men there quarrelling close by a horse bazaar. I heard one tell another to keep quiet for there was a policeman, and I looked and saw an officer coming up. A man replied, "O b... the policeman." The officer went up and something passed; but the next I heard was "I arrest you in the Queen's name." A man answered "Do you, you ..." Then I saw them all go into the horse yard, and I heard a noise as if they were kicking or striking something — a noise of blows. I went to the gate and looked in, and saw what appeared to be a man on the ground, with two or three round him, and the sound was as though they were kicking or striking him. I went towards the Post office for assistance, but found nobody, and returned. One or two people had been attracted and we went in. The officer was lying on the ground, and the prisoners were walking round him. I saw the little prisoner (Marryatt) kick the policeman. When any one offered to interfere to assist the officer, the prisoners, by actions, threatened to fight them. I saw that Marryatt's jacket was all over blood. I heard Santy say to Marryatt "Stop! He's had enough." Me and another man afterwards helped the officer to the station. He was very weak. When I got back from the Police Office, there was a woman in the yard with a lighted candle.
By Mr Barton: I think I saw four men near the horse bazaar, without the policeman. I believe one of the men did say to the officer, "I wasn't speaking to you." All four men seemed to go into the yard; and they or some of them were kicking at something, I could not at first see what. I think there were five or six men outside when I got back, and we all went in. The prisoner did prevent our interfering to help the officer; they might not have been able, if we had tried. Marryatt appeared to be the worse for liquor. I had had a glass or two to drink, but was quite sober.
Elizabeth Jones: My husband is a bootmaker in High street, our house being right opposite Isaac's horse yard. On the night of the 9th, or morning of the 10th ult., I heard a noise of quarrelling, and got up and went to the door. Afterwards I got a candle and went to the yard. Constable Parker was on the ground, and I saw Santy strike him on the head with something like a strap with a buckle on it. Only the two prisoners were there when I went; I had not known the men previously. I put my hand under the constable's head to lift him, but was not able to do so, and I went to the gate and called for assistance. I heard Marryatt say "I'm the man as done it." While I was at the door of my own house I heard Santy say, "Give it to him, Bill." When some men came in answer to my cries, the officer was taken away. He was covered with blood when I saw him. I noticed that Marryatt's clothes and hands were covered with blood, and there was blood on Santy's waistcoat. After the officer had been moved away, Marryatt hid himself, but Santy remained until constables came and took him. When he was gone Marryatt tried to escape up the Cutting; but I followed him and caught him by the collar. Only a man and another woman were near at the time. The man came to my assistance, and when we got Marryatt down to the Arcade, more assistance came, and ha was taken away.
By Mr Barton: I had never seen Santy to know him, before that night. I heard the words, "Give it him, Bill," while I was at my own door. I heard Santy speak when I went to the yard, for I spoke to him. Santy was standing quiet behind Marryatt, and not far from the policeman's head. My husband is an ex-policeman.
Mary Ann Hesford: I am the wife of George Hesford, and live in High street, opposite the horse bazaar. I was in my house on the morning of the 10th ult., when I heard a row, but did not open the door for five minutes. I heard a party say, "I'll make it a warning to you, coming to this yard." Somebody else said, "Don't kill a man down," and a party answered, " I have you down, and I'll never let you get up alive." I heard a party say "Give it to him Bill," repeating the words three times, and adding "Kill him and bring him this way." I went to look for a policeman, and met one on the other side of the Arcade. I took him to the Horse Yard. I had previously seen an officer lying on the ground in the yard, and the prisoners there, but I did not see either of them strike a blow. I saw the policeman take away Santy; and I saw the other man escape out of the yard, and then be stopped and taken away.
By Mr Briton: I am not quite sure whether I heard three or four voices. The first and the third voice were from the same man. I cannot swear to either prisoner.
William John Blake: I keep a fancy goods shop in the Arcade. I remember Sunday morning the 10th May, between twelve and one o'clock, when I was leaving the Arcade, I heard a noise up towards the Horse Bazaar. I proceeded to the place, and I heard a voice say, "I'll teach you, you b...coming to my yard — to open my gates." Words to that effect were repeated two or three times. I went into the yard, and seeing something black on the ground, I struck a match. I saw a constable on the ground, with Marryatt dancing round him. The other man was standing by. I attempted to prevent Marryatt from striking the officer; and Santy put himself in a fighting attitude, and said, "If you touch him, I'll touch you.'' I went to my father's (Blake's Hotel) for assistance, and when I came back I found two women there, one with a light.
By Mr Barton: I don't know that Santy was in my father's house at supper that night.
James Sutton, police-constable. In consequence of information, I went to Isaacs's sale yard, entering from the Stafford-street side, I saw a long streak of blood extending five or six yards into the yard from the gate, and ending in a pool about the size of a plate. Halfway down the streak I found the hair which I produce. I saw Santy standing at the gate, holding it with his left hand; and he was jesticulating violently and declaring that none of the crowd should come in to his place. I saw blood on Santy's waistcoat and right hand and I apprehended him. I drew my truncheon and struck him on the road. I produce the waistcoat Santy wore. The blood I noticed was the smeared part on the left front, as if he had wiped his bands on it. It looked as if it had been splashed or wiped on. At the watch-house I first noticed blood on the collar of the waistcoat.
By Mr Barton: I just passed Santy, went outside and looked at him, and then the crowd broke in. It was some minutes after that I arrested him; he was then down in the yard. I gave him a couple, of cracks on the head because he resisted. The blows were on the back of the head — not heavy enough to knock him down. There was no other constable holding Santy. I would never hit a man on the front of his head if I could avoid it; it might hurt him permanently. I could hit Santy on the back of the head, although I stood in front of him.
Thomas Cleary: I am private watchman in the Arcade. On the morning of the date I went to the bazaar shortly after one o'clock. I saw some men removing a policeman who proved to be Parker; he was so much disfigured I did not not recognise him, although I had known him for four or five months. He was covered with blood. A woman pointed out the taller prisoner (Santy) as a man who had beaten the officer, and Constable Sutton and and her took him into custody. Afterwards, Mr Jones saw Marryatt come out and said "he was the man who done the deed," I followed him with Mrs Jones, but I think she seized him first.
Robert Coneys, police constable: I was on duty in the watch house when the prisoners were brought in. I saw blood on Santy's waistcoat, which I kept; and there was also blood on his boots, which I returned to mm after examining them. Marryatt was all over blood, as if he had been killing a beast; I thought that he must have been wounded, he wore a spur, which I produce. There was blood on both, and quite damp I showed them both to Dr Hocken, soon after the prisoners were brought in, and the Dr said he wanted to examine them more carefully at his place next morning.
John McMahon, police sergeant: On the 10th March, I took a pair of boots and a spur to Dr Hocken, and afterwards left them in charge of the watch-housekeeper, Constable Coneys. I was constable in charge at the time, and paraded Parker before he went on duty He was perfectly sober. I met him at least three times subsequently before the assault, and he remained perfectly sober.
By the Judge: I got the boots from Coneys. They were not Santy's, but a smaller size.
Thomas M Hocken, recalled by the Court: The substance produced is human hair. It resembles Parker's hair in color, and it is also mixed with grey as is the constable's. I microscopically examined spots on the pair of boots brought in by a constable, and found them to be blood; I did not examine those on the spur, for I thought it sufficiently circumstantial that it was blood.
Edward Hulme, M.D, Provincial Surgeon: I saw Parker at the Hospital on Monday morning, the 11th ult. He had two black eyes, out of one of which he could not see. There was a cut at the angle of the left eye, bruises on the temple, scratches on the left cheek, and a mark on the jaw as if produced by the top of a boot. There was also a wound on the left hand. A blow from the rowel of the spur produced might cause the wound on the hand but certainly not that at the angle of the eye. Parker was not in a dangerous state when I last saw him, but he was afterwards.
By Mr Barton: I ordered Parker brandy one night, but it was stopped next morning.
By the Judge: I considered that the dangerous state of the officer was a consequence of the previous loss of blood, and the absence of animal food, and of alcoholic drink. He was affected as anybody would be by such wounds, who habitually took alcoholic liquors and animal food in excess. There is always danger from wounds in the head per se from the risk of erysipelas.
Mr Barton, in addressing the jury for the prisoners, said that it was a fair element for them to take into consideration in such a case - what was the cause of the interference of the police between two of the public. He contended that the only words which Parker heard, "If you don't choose to take that, you shall have no more," did not constitute an offence which would justify the taking of any man into custody. The jury stood between the police and the public. It was their duty, on the one hand, to protect the police from assault of any kind while in the discharge of their duties, and on the other hand, to protect the public from that officiousness on the part of the police which he would not say did exist, but which might exist. It was ridiculous to pretend that Marryatt's hands and clothes got into the state they were said to have been simply as the result of kicking Parker. There evidently had been a fierce struggle between him and some one else. The talk about blood on the boots and spurs amounted to nothing; for he was constantly working about horses, so that his spur, and even his boot, might easily get blood upon it in the course of his ordinary work. As to the blood upon Santy's waistcoat, he most confidently appealed to the jury to examine the vest and say for themselves whether the blood had not dropped upon it — whether that blood was not nearly all inside the vest and whether the inference must not necessarily be that it came from Santy's own head, where it was wounded by Constable Button's staff. Sutton stated that he saw blood on Santy before the arrest; but another witness said that the night was so dark that, although he looked into the yard, he could not tell how many men there were there with Parker. The independent witnesses, who all agreed that the blood on Marryatt's clothes was plainly visible, all said that they saw none upon Santy. The true aggravation of this assault was not to be found in any of the circumstances of it, but in the fact that it had been committed upon a policeman, if it had teen committed by one civilian upon another, nobody would have supposed that an attempt had been made to murder anybody: it would have been regarded simply as a quarrel ending in a heavy battle. The whole of the evidence as to Santy was that he was standing, silently and quietly, except that one witness spoke of his "squaring" at anybody that went in, or who attempted to aid the policeman. There were other discrepancies in the evidence, all deserving attention on the part of the Jury. But the main points on which he relied were that Parker was not justified in attempting the arrest; the habits of the constable, which had alone led to anything like danger in his condition; and the doubt whether Santy was in the yard at all until after the assault had been committed.
The Judge, in summing up, said that the case was not only of momentous importance to the prisoners, but it was one of general interest, and in every respect it deserved the most serious consideration. The prisoners were really being tried upon a capital charge; although the punishment was not usually inflicted in modern times, yet the law affixed the punishment of death to the offence of assaulting with intent to murder, which was charged in the first count. The second, third, and fourth counts were pretty much like one - they charged the intent to maim, to disfigure, and to do grievous bodily harm; and the important question for the jury on all of them was whether the felonious intent to do any one of the things existed at the time in the minds of the prisoners. A fifth count charged the assault to have been made with intent to resist lawful apprehension by the constable. On this count the question arose, directly and indirectly, whether or not it was a legal attempt on the part of Parker to take Marryatt into custody. This was a question partly of law and partly of fact. As to the law, he must tell the jury that if they considered the loud words deposed to were such in their nature or their tone of utterance, that considering the time when they were uttered, they were calculated to create alarm and disquiet in the neighborhood, then such a breach of the peace had been committed as authorised the constable in taking the offending party into custody. The use of filthy and abusive language was certainly such a breach of the peace as would justify arrest by an officer. It was for the jury to apply this ruling, as to the law, to the evidence given, and to say whether a breach of the peace such as had been defined, had beau committed. If so, then the constable was justified in interfering If he was not so justified, then the jury must return a verdict of Not Guilty on the fifth count. The other counts did not rest so absolutely upon the legality of the attempt to arrest Marryatt. To convict the prisoners upon the first count, the Jury must be satisfied that the blows were inflicted really and actually with the view of taking away life — that they acted with malice aforethought. It was not enough, that if the officer had died the prisoners might then be been charged with murder; the Jury must believe that the prisoners had the deliberate and distinct intention to murder. It was but a fair remark that no murderous weapon was taken up and that the wounds did not appear to have been of a deadly nature. As to the second, third, and fourth counts supposing that the Jury should think the officer was not justified in arresting Marryatt, then Marryatt would have been justified in attempting to escape from the constable's grasp — in using violence, but not excessive, in the attempt to get away. If the officer was not justified in arresting Marryatt, assuredly he was not justified in touching Santy, the original ground for interference with whom was that he had obstructed the officer in the discharge of his legal duty. But if, being illegally arrested, the prisoners not only freed themselves (as they were justified in doing), but actuated by vengeful feeling, they continued an attack upon the officer, then so far as the second, third and fourth counts were concerned, the legality or illegality of the original arrest was not an element for consideration. The law would make some allowance for human frailty under such circumstances but it did not condone diabolical cruelty. But if the jury believed that the attack made upon the officer was one made in blind fury only, and not with the felonious intent to do any of the things charged they might still, under recent statute, convict of the misdemeanor of unlawfully wounding, and acquit of all the other charges. His Honor went through the evidence at length, commenting upon it as he proceeded. He suggested as to the observation attributed to Santy, "kill him, and bring him along here," that it really did not bear a murderous character, but had a kind of brutal jocularity about it. His Honor recapitulated his directions as to the law bearing on the several counts, and the Jury then retired.
After twenty-five minutes' absence they returned with a verdict against each prisoner of — Guilty upon the fourth count (the intent to do grievous bodily harm); Not Guilty upon all the other counts. Sentence was deferred, at the request of Mr Barton; and the Court rose at twenty minutes after five o'clock. -Otago Witness, 13/6/1863.
NEWS OF THE WEEK
Constable Parker, who it will be remembered received severe injuries in a savage attack made on him by two men named Marriott and Santy, in High-street, died in the Dunedin Hospital on Wednesday. He was at one time so far recovered from the injuries he had received, as to be able to return to his duty; subsequently, however, he again fell ill, returned to the Hospital, and as we have just stated, died yesterday. Under the circumstances it is perhaps desirable that a coroner's inquest should be held to determine how far, if at all, Parker's death is attributable to the injuries he received at the hands of the two prisoners who are now undergoing imprisonment for the assault. -Otago Witness, 2/10/1863.
 |
| Southern Cemetery, Dunedin. |
DUNEDIN ITEMS
The Late Assault Case on Constable Parker. — This case, which has excited so much indignation in Dunedin, on account of its extreme brutality, was disposed of on the 10th.
They were convicted on the minor charge, assaulting with intent to do grievous bodily harm. They were sentenced respectively, William Marryatt to three years' and Edmund Santy to two years' imprisonment, with hard labour. -Lake Wakatip Mail, 20/6/1863.
The funeral of constable Parker took place yesterday afternoon. It was attended by Mr Brannigan, the Commissioner of Police, Sub-inspector Sincock, two sergeants, and about 30 officers, twelve of whom were armed as a firing party. The coffin was borne by four of the men. The cortege passed from the Hospital, across the Octagon and through Princes street to the Cemetery, where the interment took place in the ground set apart for the Church of England, the Rev Mr Edwards reading the burial service. Three volleys were afterwards fired over the grave. The deceased was 28 years of age, and unmarried. -Otago Daily Times, 2/10/1863.
 |
| Erected to the memory of John White Parker late of Dublin, Ireland member of the Otago Police whose death was accelerated by an assault received in the execution of his duty. Southern Cemetery, Dunedin. |
No comments:
Post a Comment