29
617
himself in a position in which it was difficult for men who were merely Police constables to act with unexceptional correctness, he may perhaps be satisfied.
(So)
F. H. M. 21.3.03.
:
Hon. C. S.
I have read all the statements in this case carefully. Putting aside the origin of the row, which has no bearing on
origin
the case,
the statements show that when the Indian constable went into the shop M. Reau and the Chinese were struggling, and the former was "pushed up against the wall" Yet he immediately proceeded to arrest him. The p. C. Rutledge entered and on his way to the shop, and when there he was told that M. Reau was the Acting French Consul. The latter also produced his card. Even had the disturbance been in the street, it would have been more prudent, in the case of a resident who is Acting Consul, to have left both parties to their remedy by
Summons,
after securing that the public peace was not broken. But this shop was not a public place, but a private house, where two persons, one the Chinese shopkeeper, the other the Acting French Consul, were violently disputing and made mutual accusations against each other. That the European was the French Consul was known to the constable, and apart from other consideration, that knowledge was sufficient to remove him
who possibly might be from the category of a passing stranger, detained until an opportunity was given to hear the complaint. But the constable ought to have realised that apart from any question of personal inviolability, special consideration is