LOWER COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1469, 18 June 1912, Page 3

LOWER COURT.

(Before Mr.'.W. G. Eiddell, S.M.)

SOME WORDS OVER THE FENCE'

NEIGHBOURS FALL OUT,

At Hie Magistrate's Court, yo.stcrtl.iy, Grace, Gordon prayed that Ivor neighbour, Ethel Jane Scott, should be required to find sureties of the peace. Mrs. Gordon alleged that Mrs. Scott had used the following language to her:—"You are a mongrel. You are a monkey-face. If I had a. face like yours I would fry it. You are a Scotch wowser. You married your undo because nobody elso would marry you."

Tho Gordons and the Scotts live in Smith Street, Kilbirnie. Their houses are close together, and between them lives Mrs. Banks, one of the witnesses in the case.

Mr. P. W. Jackson appeared for Mrs. Gordon, and Mr. A. Dunn for the defendant.

In a preface to the proceedings, Mr. Jackson said that Mrs. r.-.r-.-.'.'A was not even a friend of.Mrs. Gordon. At me time, Mrs. Gordon and Mrs. "Banks had been on speaking terms, but that had coino to an end. Mrs. Banks now had some imaginary grievance against Mrs. Gordon, a nil Mrs. Scott seemed to have espoused the cause of Mrs. Banks; and for some time past Mrs. Scott had been using provoking language to Mrs. Gordon. This language was becoming unbearable, and Mrs. Gordon was subjected to other annoyances. Hence the prayer.

"I Simply Ignored Her." Grace Gordon, the complainant, then gave evidence. She stated that one day, when she was in her yard shakin? her mats, Mrs. Scott called out to her: "You nionkey-taco. If I had a face like you I would "fry it." Mrs. Gordon continued: "On the 'King's Birthday, when my husband was home, and I was doing same washing, I ■ liujig something ou the line, and she called out: 'You put your child to bed while vou washed his shirt.' Later, I hung a petticoat on the line, and she said: 'Oh. look at tho Maori petticoat. Could you not get a better one?' She came to our house tlresfsd in a man's clothes one night, and •asked if 'Mr. Btimption lives here.' Mr. Gordon was in the ; house at the time, and he asked 'what does Mrs Scott want now? Ho recognised her voice." Mr. Jackson: Did you give her any reason for these annoyances? Witness: I always ignored tho woman. That mav be the reason. Are vou afraid that this conduct will ho repeated?—" Most certainly. . . . Sho told her little boy to kick my httlo girl, and he did so." Mr. Dunn: Ton used to bo a friend of Mrs. Banks?—" Yes; but I have not' had arivthing to do with her for some time. I was so disgusted because while sho pretended to be'a friend of Mrs. Scott she used to come to me and talk about Mrs. Scott. \Ye didn't want to have, anything more to do with Mrs. Banks, so wo put a board up to keep her out." Is.it not a fact that you have used bad language to Mrs." Scott?—" Certainly not." Didn't you coll her: "A descendant of convicts?''—"That has never left my month. I have called her a bad woman." When?—" When, sho pulled my little, girl's linse." ' Mr. Jackson: I think she once struck vou on the street, and pushed you down? -"Yes."

Did you complain to Constable Price?— "Yes, when she threw stones and broke our window."

Curious in Court. Some amusement was caused by the next witness, Mrs. Emma Smith,-who, though called to give evidence on Mrs. Gordon's behalf, failed for some time to grasp (ho situation, with the result that her evidence ran as follow:

Mr. .Taekson: Do you know; Mrs. Gordon.— "Witness: "Yes, I am sorry to say." Mr. Jackson (surprised): You arc sorry to say! Look at me. Don't look at Mr. Dunn.. Y'ou will have to look at him later.

Witness: I hove not got my spectacles. Mr. Jackson went up close to the Wit-ness-hoi. Witness: Oh, I thought it was the other gentleman who was speaking. Mr. Jackson: Do you know Mrs. Gordon? ~ Witness: Yes, I am sorry to say. Why are you sorry ?—"Because she is such a bad woman." lam spcakinu of Mrs. Gordon!—"l beg your pardon; I have,never been in Court before." Are you a friend of Mrs. Gordon?—"No; a neighbour." And is she a bad woman?—"No; she is a very respectable woman." Have j-mi ever heard Mrs. Scott call Mrs. Gordon any names?—" Yes. Sho called her 'monkey-face.' , . . I think Mrs. Banks sets her on." Have you ever heard Mrs. Scott tell her children to hit Mrs. Gordon's little girl? —"Yes. 'Hit her, laddie,' sho says." Frederick Gordon, compositor, corroborated his wife's evidence.

Mr. Dunn said that the defence was a denial that Mrs. Scot had used tho words alleged in the complaint. No doubt, he added, there had been some ill-feeling, but the affair was no more than a neighbour's quarrel.

Ethel Jano Scott, tho complainant, wife of Henry James Scott, a storeman, then went into tho witness bos. Sho' said, that the trouble between 3lrs. Gordon and herself had arisen through witness's children having been accused of throwing stones at Gordon's windows. As to tho affair on tho King's Birthday, sho said: "Mrs. Gordon's lino broke and I laughed. It was she who poked her head through tho fence, and I said, 'That's pretty.' "

Mr. Dunn: Did you use the language complained of in tho suramins?—"So, never!" Woman in Man's Clothes. Have you pushed Mrs. Gordon when she was in tho street?—" No. One day 1 was going through tho school grounds to get somo tomatoes for dinner, and I saw her littlo girl, and I said, 'Gracie, if you see Mrs. Bonks and 1 talking through tho fence again, don't call out that wo are yappers. Don't do it- again, will you:' and sho said 'No.' . I didn't hit her; 1 just touched her. And Mrs. Gordon camo running up and said she would summons me." "Did you dress up in a man's clothes, and go to. Gordon's?—"No, but I went to Banks's, and Mrs. Gordon was looking through tho trees, and we saw her." Francis Banks, wife of Porcy Banks, compositor, who resides between the Gordons and the Scotts, deposed that sho had never heard the language complained of. Gladys Hedges gave evidence that sho had been at Scott's on.the afternoon of the King's Birthday, and had not heard Mrs. Scott use any language to Mrs. Gordon.

That concluded the case. His Worship: It seems to me a pity that the time of the Court, two solicitors, and other people was taken up with .a pettymatter like this. However, lam satisfied that the language complained of was used, as well as other language. Defendant will be ordered to keep the peace to wards complainant for six months, and to cuter into a bond of .£10; nnd, nlso, to pay solicitor's feo £1 Is., and costs lis. Defendant will have seven days' in which to find the surely.

THE AUCKLAND ESCAPE. It was alleged against Charles John Brooks that at Auckland, ou June H, he had escaped from lawful custody. Chief-Detective Broberg said that on the Mtli inst, when prisoners were being conveyed in the prison van to Mount Eden Gaol, Auckland. . a man had escaped. That night the Nairnshire had left Auckland, and before tho vessel had Teached Wellington the man now charged had been found among the bunkers by some of the firemen. At Wellington he had been handed to the police. On the application of the Chief-Detec-tive. Brooks wes remanded to appear at Auckland this morning. HOSPITAL PATIENT'S ACT. Albert ONcn was charged with.having committed (lie tlielt of a siiil-ca'e, valued at. £1, belonging to Edward Ncwenham. OI;.-n pleaded guilty. Sub-Inspector She'lvni tinted that tlio defendant had been on inmate of the W©l\

linglon JTdspital at the time nf-itiie-ilielf;;; He had been given leave (o moyc i'abpu.t ;i little, and had taken I lie suifieasj;;'"" Jijiil deposed of it (o a -/or 2s. Olson was from (lie Weicriiji- Train-' ini: Farm. .-••-. Defendant was convicted, and./.p'r/letf-'d : (0 return (o (lie "U'creroa l-'anii. ~

no? TAI'S'CET.ERX, George liowden and John J11.5.1 £>!>'. '""ere accused of having stolen two'.bijfi'.ch'es of celery, valued at Is. id., from'the shop of' Hop 'i'ai and Co. Bowdon pleaded guilty, and : Jlisl6'p said, that. although he had been u.i't!t;' JlcnyilciV. at the time, lie had not been, it 'party to the theft. Constable Hunter deposed tii'a.t.:he'. had.■ seen the men make oil' with f in;:'ccje r/ •■_ ■ The Court convicted both the detenuants, and lined them each 10s-,-YOUTH IN A HOTE& '. Mark Carter was lined .El fpr/haying represented that he was 21 years;,'bf:,ag'tf;'.flli<J ; ... thereby obtained liquor for rco'ns'miVpt'jdiv: on the premises at the Duke ofiEdihburjjh, Hotel. ?'■:■ :'! It was stated that Sergt. Kelly'had: seen 1 the defendant in the hotel, and':!had.4ue|r tioned him as to his age, whereupon ■ C'ii.rr. tor had admitted that he 'hndiJJusti-siJirjicit; twenty. OTHER CASES;;,; V For insobriety, Patrick Gitlies;jriis'..*fine4'-' 10s., William Loundes 10s.. JamesVOfßr.ieii:', 17s. 6d., Xorman M'Phee 10s.';V ! Jo'hft'-:Byrji'e:' i£l, and Charles Skidmore £l\v'i".. A prohibition order was issusi-.agaihs.t;' Alexander Robertson. !p !*;, ; . '■ ,\ For having broken prohibition...ojfdbr.s,. ■ Alexander Matheson and Henry wove each fined .£3. ■;■ ;'??>'.'..;■.;..

Ralph Richard Raymond ed the father of a certain child.?:and. .-hp. was ordered to pay 7s. per Sce.kf fo.Witrds. the child's maintenance. '~ " .T,' ;