RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2717, 1 November 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tins Day, (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.)

Civil Cases,

Wilson and Birch v. Colclough was further adjourned for a fortnight. Cutten (for Provincial Treasurer) v. Macdonald —Mr Stewart for the defendant Mr '•ander asked for a forth r adjournment. It was adjourned to Friday week. A. J. Talbot v. George Bell, was a claim for L 6, for salary due, and a week’s wages in lieu of notice. Mr Stout appeared for the plaintiff, A. J. Talbot said : I was engaged in the EvenhiQ Star office as publisher at a salary of Lit per week. On August 2(5 I got a fortnight’s notice to leave. Mr Whiteway had given me notice to leave four or five times previously. On the Friday following Whiteway began to kick up a row in the office, I was publishing the paper at the time. He began abusing me. I told him that I would not put up with it. He then called me a liar. A little boy bad come into the office for a paper, when Whiteway asked him for a sixpence. I said to him, “ Ton know he’s paid it ; ” whereupon he said, “You’re a liar.” He went on, and 1 told him he was no gentleman. Whiteway was in a very bad humor, aud there had been sharp words between us. Before I knew what I was abon l , became behind me and put me out, tearing my coat aud the buttons off my waistcoat. I did not go into the office again because he might possibly have pitched into me. He certainly said he would break every bone in my body if 1 came into the office again, and 1 would not give him the chance to do that. I was obliged to leave, because so long as Whiteway was there was sure to be further mischief, I was at the office on Saturday morning, but afterwards my face got so swollen that I could not go out ui til I went to the Mayor’s Court. J don’t think I have got over the excitement even now. Cross-examined : Yon know it is not true that I was engaged at L 3 a week, in consideration of any having a large family. The agreement was made with Mr Whiteway and you. You said if 1 could agree with Wiiiteway it would be all right. There were no conditions at all. I was to give security, but I had not time, 1 sent to Melbourne for security. I did not at all mi erstand that if I did not get security I would he discharged at any moment. • Whiteway said 1 was to get a fortnight’s notice ; and you know he has given me notice several times. I say distinctly that I was not intoxicated when tbc row took place. I certainly had a glass of beer that day at the Shamrock, but it was lunch time then. The row arose out of a sixpence. I certainly called him a dancing gorilla. 1 was perfectly sober, which was nunc than he was. 1 think what 1 said to him was very mild ; he had no right to interfere with me when 1 was publishing the paper. He insulted jnc first. When I called him a dancing gorilla he felt annoyed, and said lie would not stand it. 1 oMy called him it once. I only insulted him once. I was standing in the street that day when you came downstairs, near to some men, who heard the disturbance, and came about the .place. Mr Fish was on the opposite side of the road at the time. When he came up, you turned round to Whiteway. aud said, “You ought not to have done this.” Yon did not say to me, “ Talbot, what arc you doing there?” you said, “Come back into the office,” aud I replied, “ I will, Mr Bell, if , you stay till the paper is published, or send Mr Whiteway away.” I never said, “ 1 will never go into the office so long as that d rascal is there.” When you said “Talbot, comeback,” I was standing just inside the office, Wbitcway said, “1 know I should not have done this.” You said I must take the consequences if I dismissed myself; and I replied, “ How can 1 go back when I am dismissed ?” I certainly told Whiteway he could go and be banged, which you may have mistook for “d d.”

11. S. Fish, juur.: I saw Mr Talbob on the ivgilt i>f the assault. Ho was perfectly sober when I - aw lain.

For >he defence the following witnesses were calh d : John Benm-tt Whitoway said: I am manager of the Krciiin;/ Shir. 1 made the arrangement with Talbot; he spoke to me, and asked me whether 1 could give him a berth. 1 think oar publisher was abomflto leave at that time. 1. told him the salary was hOs a-wcck, and ho seemed quite satisfied, but I confessed that it was .-mall, knowing that he had a large family. I afterwards told him that I had prevailed upon Mr Bell to stretch a point, and that lie was to have B.‘{ a week. There was no agreement as to terms of notice. On the evening of the assault Talbot was intoxicated. It was customary for him and me to read together “commercial proofs/’ hut he was

unable to read them-op the aftetiiodtt in fiuestioui!— at all .'♦.ieVeif&ft.' ;-.ob* l^-.^/'gttt':,>' : thoy $b wth mb l hit afternoon. Talbot had’heen exceedingly misty 1 dtniigHhe week; -.1- was aEpreliensivo'of spiae'impleaeahtnesS oh this accdmit. On that same day he had said, putting his face close to mine, “ D—n you ; why don’t you pay me off and let me out of this-misery ?”- n the ejv^h|g,-there IwSf a ■ large accumulation pf‘papeva«on: the bofach, and the runners were very desirous of getting out. L said to him",' “ Talbot, why don’t you give out the papers,’.’.. The moment I snoke tf> him. telling him to go on with his duty, he said “ yon d—d. dancing gorilla am -1 to obey you ? 1 shall' hot‘do it or obey a d—d dancing gorilla.” With our large issue of between 2,000 and 3,000 copies nightly it is absolutely necessary that the publishing shall proceed as rapidly ns po sible, so I. spoke to him and insisted that he should go on with his work; that he should do one of two things —either that he should go on with the publishing, or that he should go away and come back when he was sober. He was in Ins 1 usually muddled state of drunkenness, He thereupon replied, “ I was never so sober in . all my life. I wondered at the patience I manifested at the time. Putting his face close to mine, lie said, “You ugly dancing gorilla, you have been connected with a ‘penny gaff’—anyone can see that.” A

penny gaff is a low theatre in London. Finding that I could not persuade him to be quiet. I c ported the door and requested him to walk out. He said he would not, and clung to the partition. I then put my arms carefully around him, arid carried him outside. He afterwards put his head just, inside the door, and said, “You see what you’ve done.” He showed me the buttons off his coat, but I was -astonished when his waistcoat was .produced in the Mayor’s Court. [An extract from a letter by the plaintiff’, in which he stated that all entries in the books were made by him at Mr Wbiteway’s dictation, was here read.] I did not direct Talbot to make the errors which appear in the books. Cross-exa-mined ; 1 have no unkindly feeling towards Talbot. I was lined 40s and costs, including professional costs, but I don’t think that would heighten my feeling towards him. I have said I have no animus towards him, I am simply called he e as a witness to give evidence. I did call him a liar, but it was after he had threatened that after he left be would expose me. I then said, “you are so great a liar that your best friends would not believe you.” I might have called him an idiot or one demented ; but I never called him a “ dementi didiot I should not form such a sentence. I am only admitting the possibility of my having called him demented, or an idiot; still*! have a very accurate recollection of what took place. What I wish to say is, that I might have said be was simply demented, but I don’t admit that T did. 1 was under the influence ■of excitement when I put him out. Notwithstanding that I was excited, ! put my arms as carefully around him as I would take a child. At all events, lam sorry that I did not thrash him, as I ought to have done, became the probability is that the same line would have covered the whole.

Air Sb'ut; Yet you have such a kindly feeling towards him ? Witness : I was perfectly sober. It is possible I bad a glass of beer at the Shamrock that day, but I am always capable of doing my duty. I don’t think Mr Fish is very logical in saying that Talbot was sober ; because in the course of reasoning it may be presumed thatj he came to the conclusion that I had given him a great shaking, which would have sobered him. I did not give him such a shaking as to sober him.

Alp Stout: Then you have no right to presume.

. Witness : I can only say Mr Fish was greatly imposed upon. He might have stated what he thoroughly believed to bo true. I will contradict Talbot in saying that he was sober; he was in that peculiar state of drunkenness that Mr Fish might, have, been deceived. I was compelled to expel Talbot ; I did not dismiss or discharge him. I thought he would have come back the following morning, apologised, and have resumed work, because I supposed he would be sober the next morning. My defence in the Mayor’s Court did not rest on the plea that I had dismissed him ; it was that I was justified in putting him out on account of his drunkenness. If I had said to him “ Do.not come back,” it would have been a dismissal; but what I said was “You must either do your duty, or I shall be obliged to put you out.” When I put him out I said “ Come back when you get sober.” When he clung to the partition, I saw he was in the humor to continue his annoyance in the office. He saw I was bent on putting him out. 1 would act as 1 did in like circumstances to-night. There was a quarrel about a sixpence. I did not keep that back, and it is not fair to say that I did. I will not contradict a witness if be says that it commenced about a sixpence, Thos. H. Jennings, a runner of the Evenhuj Slav, deposed to being present when the row between Whiteway, and .Talbot occurred. It arose about a sixp nee. A boy bad come fora paper, and White way asked him when he had paid last. Talbot turned round and said, “you know very well he had paid for it; he paid yesterday.” Whiteway replied, “ 1 did not ask you the question ; 1 did not say anything to you. ” Both were very excited. Instead of counting the papers before him Talbot kept going over them three or four times. Whiteway asked him to attend to his duty, when he called him a dancing gorilla. He left his papers four times to insult Mr Whiteway. When Whitcway told him to leave the place, he replied, “I’ll see you d d first.” Thereupon Whiteway turned him out. Witness considered Talbot very much intoxicated. James H. Clayton said Talbot saw him on the Monday following the assault, when they arranged that he. sh 'u cl go to tlie Star office, and Talbot to Mills, Di k. and Co.’s. His Worship, in giving judgm nt, said that i. see > cd to him that both parties were very much to blame. There seemed to have bsen an ill-fei ling existing between the manager and plaintiff for some time before ; and the dispute which had occurred was the culminating point. In view of all the circumstances plaintiff was entitled to his wages only for the time he actually worked; but he was bound to aay, in justice to the defendant, that he (the o agistrate) did not think Mr Talbot's conduct was at all proper. He had givi n great provocation ; and the idea of a man calling his superior in the office a dancing gorilla before a lot of news; aper boys, Mas perfectly outrageous. As be had said, plaintiff was entitled to wages for the time he had worked; but he would mark his

sense of his conduct by giving him no cos»F Judgment for plaintiff. L2 iffit—each paying its own costs. - FF’Yb Daily Times and 1 Vilness Company McLeod. LI 5s for subscription to, tire papers Judgment by defaultfot' the. plaintiff. ‘ C Fletcher v. Bousfield. L2 2s for groceries supplied. Judgment by default for the J -SAdersou v. Galloway.— L3Bs 4d for balance of account. Judgment for the plaintiff by default for the amount with costs. Barton v. Hardy.—l.l 9s. for a week’s rent of a house and d.imago, done to it. Judgment for the plaintiff,’ LI 9s. with costs. , Finewood v. Chaplin.—LG lls 4d. The defendant paid into Court L 3 19s 6d. This was a claim for balance of wages. The plaintiff was a groom who had previously been in the defendant’s service about four months’ ago at L2 5s a week. He left the employ, and, some tinie after, wanting work, he was re-engaged without agreement as to wages. For the defence, it was stated that . the rate of wages was to be L2 a-week. Mr Taggart gave evidence.that the wages of grooms for the past six months had been L2 a-week. Judgment for the plaintiff for L 4 6s 2s, each party to pay costs.