CHARGE OF ASSAULT Two Brothers in Court Wellington-street Incident
Examiner (Launceston, Tas. : 1900-1954) Thursday 1 November 1928 Edition: DAILY p 11 Article

CHARGE OF ASSAULT Two Brothers in Court Wellington-street Incident on Monday last a disturbance occurred in Wellington-street, near York-street, as a result of which two brothers, George and Charles Harold Shepherd, were arrested on a charge of having assaulted Constable Wicks in the execution of his duty. Both men appeared in the City Police Court on Tuesday, when Charles Shepherd pleaded guilty, and his brother not a guilty. They were remanded, and appeared before the magistrate (Mr. G. Crosby Gilmore) in the City Police Court yesterday afternoon. Mr. Wilfred Hutchins represented both defendants. "Guilty Under Provocation" The case in which Charles Harold Shepherd (26) pleaded guilty was taken first. Inspector Hynes, who conducted the prosecution, stated that the disturbance originated from a matter in which a motor cycle figured. Both men had been drinking, but the defendant was not as much under the influence of liquor as his brother. The constable had occasion to speak to George Shepherd, who threw himself across the motor cycle, and used indecent language. The constable thereupon essayed to arrest him on a charge of being drunk and disorderly. While he was arresting him the a defendant struck him several blows from behind. In fairness to the defendant, the inspector continued, it was only. right to add that he had never previously given any trouble, and had never been in a court before. He had a good reputation, and he (the inspector) was quite sure that had he not been under the influence of liquor he would not have struck the constable. On behalf of the defendant Mr. Hutchins stated that he was pleased to hear what the inspector had said , regarding the defendant's character. He admitted having struck the constable. but he had not done so from behind. He had had some provocation for his act since the constable - had called him a thief, telling him that he had stolen the motor cycle. This was entirely wrong, as the men had bought the cycle that day, and had been handed a receipt for an instalment. On being told that he was a thief the defendant, who was quite sober at the time, struck the constable. The magistrate said that he had some doubt as to whether the defendant did not have some provocation for striking the constable. The constable swore that he did not call the defendant a thief, but he (the constable) hedged when he (the magistrate) questioned him in the course of his evidence. The defendant, however, might have restrained himself. As the defendant had not been in a court before, he considered that a fine of £1, with costs, would suffice.

Insufficient Evidence

In the other case, in which George Shepherd pleaded not guilty to the charge, was then called on. Constable E. J. Wicks stated that at 1.30 on October 29, he saw a motor cycle driven by Charles Harold Shepherd pass over the intersection of Wellington-street and York-street. The defendant, George Shepherd, had his feet in the doorway of the sidecar attached to the cycle. He had hold of the sidecar with one hand and portion of his body dragged on the roadway. The machine stopped opposite the Prince of Wales Hotel in Wellington-street. Witness stood and watched the men for about five minutes. They tried to start the motor cycle, but could not get the engine to run. Witness went up to the men, and asked what was the trouble, and they informed him that they had just got the cycle from Mitchell's garage, and could not get it to run. Noticing that there was no number plate on the cycle, witness asked the men if it was registered. They replied that they were taking it to be registered then. The constable told them that it was apparently not in a fit state to be taken to be registered, and advised the men to take it to a garage and have it fixed up. Charles Shepherd then went into Mitchell's garage, and returned a few minutes later, followed by a workman from the garage. The defendant, who was well under the influence of liquor, then went over to the cycle, and addressed the constable, said, "It is my cycle, and I'll do what I - well like with it," and lay across the cycle. Witness told him that he would have to lock him up. Defendant caught hold of the constable's arm, and, after a struggle, ran out on to the road. He to then called out, "Come out here, and in I'll punch you in the jaw" the Witness proceeded to arrest George Shepherd, who struck him on the arm, and while he (the constable) was struggling with him Charles Shepherd struck him (witness) several blows from behind. A bystander then came to witness' assistance. Eventually they were both handcuffed. 'Witness first commenced to arrest - George Shepherd on a charge of being drunk and disorderly. When he arrived at the police station with the men he charged one with that offence, and both of them with having assaulted him in the execution of his duty. To Mr. Hutchins I did not accuse either of the men of stealing the motor cycle. I did not disbelieve what I was told about the ownership to of the cycle. Mr. Hutchins-You have been in trouble before on account of your tactless ways, haven't you? '- Witness-I would rather leave that case alone. Mr. Hutchins-You were moved from Longford on that account, weren't you? - Witness--I suppose I was. Continuing, witness said that he had not gone back to the garage to find out how the men got the cycle. He did not think that they stole it, and did not tell Charles Shepherd that.he had stolen it. Charles Harold Shepherd, a witness for the defence, stated that on the day in question he was bringing a motor cycle to the police station to get it registered. His brother, George Shepherd, was with him. Witness was not under the influence of liquor. - Something went wrong with the cycle, and leaving it with his brother in - Welllngton-street, witness went to Mitchell's garage to get a mechanic to come down and examine the cycle. Constable Wicks interviewed him in the street, and asked him where he got the cycle. Witness told him that he and his brother had bought it that day. The constable asked him if he was sure he did not steal it. After some minutes witness went back to a the cycle. The constable followed, and said, "Leave the cycle alone. You stole it!" With that witness struck the constable. His brother, George Shepherd, did not strike him. 'The only reason witness could see for his brotlher's arrest was that he was a bit drunk. Witness would not have struck the constable had he not called him a thief. His brother did not call out to the constable, "Come out here, and I'll punch you on the - jaw." To Inspector Iynes--I did not strike the constable from behind, and it was not for arresting imy brother. It was for calling him a thief. ( Francis H, Woods, butcher, carring on business at the corner of Wellington and York streets, stated that at 1.30 p.m. on the date in question, he saw a constable approach two young men who were pushing a motor cycle across the street. Witness recognised George Shepherd in court as one of the men, but could not identify the other. The constable was speak to the men, and there appeared to be some trouble. The constable appeared to be arresting one of them when the other struck hit from behind. The policeman was engaged struggling with the other man, who was striking at him. Witness went across, and saw that the constable had thrown the smaller man, while the other was engaged with a by stander. He had gone to the assistance of the constable. Eventually the two men were arrested, and the constable took them away. to Mr. Hutchins--The constable went into Mitchell's garage prior to the trouble and returned from the garage. The men were behaving themselves before the police man arrived. I do not know what provocation the constable gave to either man. I saw neither of the men give any cause for their arrest. This concluded the evidence. Mr Hutchins informed the magistrate that the charge stated that the defendant struck the constable on the head. No evidence to his effect had been given, and therefore he asked that the complaint to be dismissed. The magistrate said he could not understand why the defendant could not have been brought up to court on a summons instead of being arrested in the street. He might have been under the intilence of liquor, and the constable possibly had cause to arrest him. The charge, however, distinctly stated that defendant struck the constable on the head. The constable said in his evidence that the defendant struck him on the arm, but said nothing about a blow on the head. The evidence had disclosed conflicting testimony, and he thought it only right to dismiss the charge.

Close