ALLEGED BAD LANGUAGE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVI, Issue 33, 8 February 1905, Page 2

ALLEGED BAD LANGUAGE.

■ A_-L-_GAT_ONf3 FROM NELSONSTREET. According to several witnesses in the Police Court this morning, Thomas Chappell, a Nelson-street resident, was guilty of very disgraceful conduct in that neighbourhood recently. He was charged before Mr Wardell, SJM., with using obscene language in Nelson-street on January 31. According to the statements of residents in the neighbourhood named Patterson, Lennan and William Colson, the accused Thomas Chappell came home to his house in Nelson-street between 10 and 11 o'clock on the night of January 31 in an intoxicated condition, and quarrelled with his daughter, shouting out terribly obscene expressions which the witnesses would not repeat, but wrote down. These could be heard 400 yards away, and the bad language was kept up for between one and a-half and two hours. Crockery was heard to be flying about in the house, and Chappell walked up and down a paddock outside his house for an hour, keeping up the bad language all the time. Mr Patterson described Chappell as "raving mad,'' while Constable Cos said that in addition to using bad language. Chappell threw stones at his daughter. Mr Pilkiugton, who defended Chappell, call the defendant. Hi's evidence was that lie heard a complaint against his daughter and struck her. She then called two men into the house to murder him. They threatened to do this, and he shouted "Cox, Cox. there's murder." Cox was the constable, and witness understood he as arrested for using those words. He denied using bad language outside his house, but admitted that he might have sworn a little inside. Chappell, in reply to Sub-Inspector Black, said he could not deny that he had been convicted three times of using indecent language, and twice for using insulting language. He had been convicted eight times for breaches of a prohibition order which he said he took out himself. He denied having been convicted of larceny and assault, Ethel Chappell, the accused's daughter, was also charged with using obscene language on the same occasions, and the magistrate reserved his decision until he had heard the second case. - - ' ■■