Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-09-09
POLICE AUTHORITY.
MAYOR COLLIER REPLIES TO HIS
RICHMOND CRITICS.
An Extended Analysis end Opinion on
the Question Of Arrests-A Gas
Explosion.
rcorrcspondencs Of the Richmond pispsscn.I
PxrrRspuRo. September 8, 1880.

,corrcspordencs Of the Richmond pispssch.l
PxrrRspuRc, September 8, 1880.
Mavor Collier to-day, after thoroughly
considering the interviews printed IN Satur-
days Dispaich, made the following OK.
tended statement, with comment ana
ANALYSIS. As will be seen from the following
which is authoritative in every respect.
MAYOR ooLLrEs's RxJorxpER.
"t is true" said the Mayor "as report
sd In Sundays Dispatch. that declined 10
discuss further my recent decision IN re-
csrd 10 police officers making themselves
Known TO offenders before attempting ar
ycsts. / was not informed at 0df time,
however. that the subject had been so ven
tilated in the columns Of that deservediy
influential newspaper. had. however,
seen the opinion pronounced by ex-foilce-
Justice Richardson in the columns OF the
f,sder- ApTeni in its Richmond letter. Inc
isv ne land down by that opinion differs IN
no wise from the legal view held py
me except possibly that the law IS
rather broadly stated as 10 the legal effect
of notice to o violator Of the law from the
fact OF arrest by a man in poilce-uniiorm
and wearing police-badge. But. says
the opinion. in some cases u wouio 20
the safer course for him that is, the
man in uniform aud with the badge 10
do so.' Let us illustrate: A blind man IS
drunk and bosterous on the streets an
officer with uniform and badge approaches
such one and says. Come, go WIN me,
end laws hands on the offender; the or
fender repels force with force
ISLE AN OFFICER?
els such an one liable to conviction for
resisting en- officer. the officer failing 70
admonish the man sought to be arrested
that ne is an officer, IN the absence Vi
moot that the offender knew the man ar
Testing him was an officer of the Law! The
LEGAL nropositlon which enunciated from
The bench in the trial of Nat Gardner was
this: In order to convict man Oh tne
offence of resisting an officer IN the as
charge OF his duty IL most be SHOWN 10
the satisfaction OF the Court that the
nartv resisting knew that the party. ar
resting him was an officer OF the law.
The case before the Court was this :
The MAYORS docket showed three cases
AGAINST Nat. Gardner. The first was for as
sault. and il appearing more than TWO
wears had elapsed during which time
Gardner was out OF Petersburg, but NOT
ont of the State, this warrant was dis
missed under the statute OF limitations;
The second case was for drunkenness ana
disorderly conduct. and it appearing That
Gardner was drunk he was fined the sta-
futory f9ne of 81 and 1925 costs. Inc
third case was for resisting an officer OF
the law. and it appearing that Gardner
was very drunk, not to say blind-drunk,
and the evidence in the court on that
morning showing that he was stranger
in Petersburg, notwithstanding the arrest
was made by an officer IN UNIFORM wi ad
the badge of his authority. dischargeu
Gardner, being of opinion from all the CIR.
cnmstances OF the case that he was not
liable TO conviction on warrant charging
him with kno,ringiy resisting an ofncer IN
the discharge of his duty.