The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1879-10-10
POLICE INTERFERENCE.

THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR AN
UNLAWFUL ARREsT--JUDGE spEIE ON THE
RIGHTS OF CITIZENS.
The verdict of the jury given yesterday before
Judge Speir. in tha Superior Court in the suit
brought by Angus p. Mcintyre. editor of the Long
Island City Courier. against Police Officer Frederick
Raduns. to damages for alleged false arrest
and imprisonment-thc facts OF which were pub
lished in yesterdays HEIALp--was great surprise
to numerous members of the force in attendance at
the Court. 1t will be remembered that Mr.. Mcln-
tyre claimed that while accompanying young lady
friend to her home last March he was rudoly nc
costed by the defendant. who insnlted the young
lady. and upon his AIr. McIntyre) interfering for
her protection. finally carried him of to the station
house. In the morning he honorably dis
charged. On the trial considerable testimony was
taken. tho defence attempting to prove that Mr..
Mcintyre disorderly and first assaulted the de-
PENDANT.
THE CHARGE
Judge speir delivered brief but impartial charge
as fopows:--
The only allegation in the answer of defendant.
the police officer. which he claims justiies his
duct in this case. is that Mr. Mcintyre and the lady
we're talking loudly and making noise tending to
disturb the public peace. The does not
claim that plaintiff assaulted and struck the defend
ant. Now it is important that l should state pre-
cisely what officer and what he cannot do be-
have of late heard great deal in this great
city of the improper interference Of officers with in
dividuals who are in the pursuit OF their occupa-
tions and who are entitled to 60 undsturbed. say
to you,
iI,st-That mere talking or singing does not ut
common law constitute breach OF the peace and
an officer cannot arbitrarily make 1t by calling 1t
disturbance.
.Second-Unless there is an actual breach of the
nf "
common law takes cognzance-nothinQ which justi
fies officers interference-and If he interferes
ard parties do not desist and he then threatens
force they may then threaten resistance. Have you
heard any evidence in this of there being any
tumut or disturbance of the peace except this
alleged noise? If there not then tho officer
could be resisted. and the plaintiff entitled to
just such force as was to protect
breach. and no cannot justify himself by calling
that breach OF the peace which not breach.
Ic must show by the facts that there was actual
breach.
Thi,d-Mcrely being drunk is not by law sufficient
to Justify Interference Ihero are rules which 1t Is
officers were here to Near me- Merely being drunk
is not by law sufciontto Justify interference. The
Derby not only in tho Of being drunk. but Of
causing annoyance TO others. As to the word dds
turbauce," IL must mean "a disturbance tending to
o breach of tho peace
It is great mistake to suppose that you can take
a man by the collar and drag him off to prison
simply because he has got too much liquor aboard
The police officers OF this city have no right
to do it, although I very sorry to
say they do do i. and this causes a
great deal of disturbance. Ought they not
rather. as men armed with power. to be
charitable and to take of the unfortunate man
because man Is drunk il why he shonld
be pumnielled. 1t Is only whom he is creating a
disturbance tina. he may be arrested 1t has been
decided in courts and in the OF England,
time out of mind. that where policeman attempts
to arrest nless no is legally justified In arrestig
resistance to him to any extent necessary Will be
lawful and justitable
II tho defendant in this had done just what
plaintiff and the young lady say he did do. then
hold that plaintiff could have done anything for the
purpose OF preventing it, and II it was true that
defendant continued to insult this young lady in
the manner il which they say he did, thcy
could have gone to very great extrcmcs
and could have taken the law in their own hands
against him. Now, gentlemen, 1t IL unnecessary for
me to go further. Understand that do for one
moment justify opposition to lawful authority I
would not say one word to encourage 1t. But the
time has come when something should DO done to
discourage officers from interfering with peace
able people ana from exercising authority
for which there Is foundation in Inv
or morals. You will bear in mind that
the young lady who was with the plaintiff is not
Interested party. She has nothing to do with this
suit. The only bearing there Is Is the fact th.s
what the officer did unlawful. 1t Is most DIM
cult to conceive of citizen being innoceptly
engaged than was plaintiff. He ~ bound in duty
to then and there protect that woman in almost
any situation you can imagine.
Having he ,rd the above charge. the jury retired.
and after an of about ten minutes returned
with verdict for $4,000. which tho defendant will
either be compelled to pay or go to jail.