§ MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he was aware that, on the 21st January, Alfred Smith, of 4, Emerald Street, being aroused by cries of "murder," came out of his house, and found Police Constable Kendal beating a young man; whether Alfred Smith, to prevent serious result, took away the policeman's truncheon; whether, on 29th January, Alfred Smith was for this fined 12s. and costs by Mr. Vaughan, on a charge of obstructing the constable; whether Alfred Smith was further summoned, on 7th February, for detaining the truncheon, and whether such summons was, after careful hearing, dismissed by Sir J. Ingham, the truncheon having been shown to have been laid on the doorstep; whether Alfred Smith was now sued in the County Court by the Receiver General of the Metropolitan Police for £1 2s., as the actual value of such truncheon; whether he would state the price per truncheon really paid by the Government; and whether these repeated proceedings had been taken with his consent?
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,) Birmingham, E.I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that he has no knowledge of the fact stated in the first paragraph. A man assaulted P. C. Kendal and another constable, and has been fined by the Magistrates for these assaults. Smith took away the policeman's truncheon, and was fined as stated in the third paragraph. The Chief Commissioner is not aware that the truncheon was laid on the doorstep. The summons mentioned in the fourth paragraph was dismissed on the 7th February, the learned Magistrate remarking—
That he did so because the police were unable to prove that the truncheon was in the possession of Smith when the summons was applied for, and that the proper course was to sue Smith in the County Court.Accordingly Smith has now been sued in the County Court for the value of the truncheon—namely, 2s., and for £1 damages for illegal detention of the same. The price of the truncheon was 369 2s. The sanction of the Secretary of State was not asked for, nor was it necessary with reference to any of these proceedings, which were all taken in the ordinary course of law.