LYTTELTON CASES.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14837, 1 December 1913, Page 8

LYTTELTON CASES.

At the Lyttelton Magistrate's Court on Saturday, before Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., Francis Creake Sadler was charged that on November 26th, on a railway carriage between Christchurch and Lyttelton,.he did use provoking language, to wit, "scabs" and "scabbing," to Joseph Salt, whereby a breach of the peace might have been occasioned. •

The case had been adjourned from Friday so that it might be heard before a magistrate. Mr Hunt appeared for accused, who pleaded not guilty. Joseph Henry Salt, wharf labourer, said that he had been a passenger by the 7.20 a.m. train from Christchurch on the ,26th inst. Sadler came through the carriage, and approaching witness said: I didn't think you were going to be a traitor to your mates. You know you passed a resolution that. you wouldn't start work till to-morrow morning." Witness made no answer, and accused said: .You know you are a scab, and, in fact, you are worse than a scab—you are a traitor to your mates." Accused also asked him to go to the Oddfellows' Hall, telling him that if he did he would get all he wanted. Witness declined, stating that ho was. not a member of the Red Federation.

To Mr Hunt: He had attended a meeting of the Railway Casual Union the previous.night. He did not lay the information—the police did. Arthur Harrington, a casual wharf labourer, said that he had travelled on the train in company with others. Sadler came through the carriage, and addressing Salt made use of the words mentioned by Salt. Sadler left the train at Heathcote. To Mr Hunt: They had decided at a meeting the previous night not to work the next day, but they changed their minds. Henry William Baker, railway casual labourer, said that he did not take much notice of what Sadler said," but he remembered him saying, "They will bo scabs." Witness could not say to whom the words were addressed. Thero was no fighting, and no attempt at fighting. Accused said that he was a member of the Railway Casual Workers' Union. He was a passenger on the train, and seeing Salt, he told him that there was a meeting to be held that morning to consider whether or.not the members would work. He would deny positively that he used the words alleged against him. His object in travelling on the train was to let as many men as possible kpow that a meeting was to be held that morning. The Magistrate said that accused would be ordered to enter into a bond of £20 to keep -he peace for six months. HARBOUR BOARD EMPLOYEE CHARGED. . James Coney was then charged with using obscene language to an arbitrationist named Mark Atwilliams, on the wharf on the 26th inst. - He pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr Hunt. Mark Atwilliams said that on the day in question he was working on No. 3 -wharf wi__ some mates, when accused

accosted him and made use of the word_ charged against him. He was certain that accused was th© man who used the language. To Mr Hunt: He had been engaged peddling postcards until three weeks ago. Three other men were with witness when he came off the man-of-war, which was Tying at the wharf, and the language used was heard by them. The accused was not reported by witness to the poiice. One of his mates reported the matter to the captain 'of tho Canopus. Although there were special constables about, they did not complain to them. , William Fox, at present employed on the Lyttelton wharves, corroborated the evidence of the previous witness. James Walker also gave evidence on 6imi'ar lines. James Bourne said that he had heard the language, but did not look round to see who used it. He did not report the occurrence to the captain until half an hour later. Mr Hunt said that a mistake had been made by the arbitrationists. The men who worked with accused wero not members of any union, and would stoutly deny that the language was need by accused. In any case, the wharf was not a public place within the meaning of the Act. It was surrounded by the special police, and tho public were excluded. Cyrus J. Williams, secretary and engineer to the Harbour Board, said that accused bore an excellent character.

William Peat, foreman of works for the Board, said that he had never heard accused use foul language all the years he had known him, and, personally, he did not believe that accused had used it. Accused said that on the 26th inst. he was engaged in tarring the wharves. He saw the arbitrationists pass him, and would swear that he did not use the words charged against him. Thomas Kirk said that he had been working with accused all the morning, and was not more than six feet from him all day. It would have been impossible for the language to bo used without witness hearing it. Walter Harcus said that he belonged to no.union, having left the Waterside Workers' Union because he refused to pay a "Waihi" levy. He would swear that no such language was used by the Harbour Board employees.

James Hayden, winchman, said that he had been in charge of a number of arbitrationists on the 26th inst. He remembered passing the Harbour Board men, but did not hear any bad language from them. Frank Roder, Roel Skingall, William Stout, and Joseph Creacy, of the Harbour Board's staff of casual employees, also 6wore that no bad language had been used.

The Magistrate said that it was evident that perjury had been committed by Borne of the witnesses, but, under the circumstances, he had no alternative but to dismiss the case.