THE HORSEWHIPPING CASE.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1920, 20 April 1880, Page 3

THE HORSEWHIPPING CASE.

At tho Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr Mellish, R.M., R. Steir was summoned for making use of abusive and threatening language towards R. L. Gower, calculated to provoko a breach of the peace. Mr Thomas appeared for the complainant, add Mr Stringer for the defendant. The complainant, an employe of Mr Bryce, hairdresser, etc., of Colombo street, s'ated that the defendant on a certain day told him ho ohould not work the next day, and perhaps might never work again. This was the language complained of. Witness’ employer, Mr Bryce, went and laid an information at the police court. In connection with Ills case R. Steir, Walter Stafford, and Kate Stafford were summoned for assaulting R. L. Gower on the 9th of April. The complainant, Robert Levieon Gower, a hairdresser in the employ of Mr Bryce, stated that up to the dry before the alleged assault was committed, ha and tho defendant Steir worked together. Steir was discharged the following morning. Witness and he had never had angry words. Witness was tho only person left in Mr Biyco’a employ on the Friday the defendant Steir was discharged. It was then that Steir made use of tho words, “ You shall not work after seven o’clock,” &o. Mr Stafford and Mr Steir came that evening to Mr Bryce’s, and witness heard. Stafford cay he wanted to see Mr Bryce’s man, and if he did not prove his words ho should break his neck. Later on ho saw the three defendants in Hereford street, and S’,afford taxed him with saying that he (Stafford) and tho defendant (Kate Stafford) wore not married. This occurred in front of Mr Fisher’s shop Mrs Stafford then struck him over the head with either a whip or a stick. Witness could not suy which. The defendants Walter Stafford and Steir stood upon cither side of Mrs Stafford while the latter committed tho assault. It was not true that ho (witness) had ever questioned the fact of Mrs Stafford’s marriage. A shopman of Mr Fisher’s gave evidence of the fracas , which originated by the male defendants accusing the compla'nant of saying that Mr and Mrs Stafford wore not married. Stafford made the accusation on tho authority of Steir, and Gower denied it. Steir made a motion as if he would assault Gower, and witness interfered for his protection. It was then that Mrs Stafford stepped, between her two companions, and assaulted Gower with a slick resembling a nipple jack. The blows caused the blood to flow freely from complainant’s head, and tho defendant, Kate Stafford, suggested that perhaps he (witness) would like a little too.

Mr Bryce, sworn, gave evidence of the fact of Walter Stafford having called at hia shop and threatened the complainant with violence if ho did not prove the statement he had made against the character of his (Stafford’s) wife. This was the complainant’s case. Mr Stringer addressed the Court and called Walter Stafford. He gave evidence to the effect that ho had been informed by Steir that Gower had for months past boon spreading reports that Mrs Stafford was not married to him. He sought out Gower and taxed him with it, and the latter evaded answering the question. It was while ho was talking to Gower that Mrs Stafford came up and struck complainant several blows over the head and face with a rattan cane. There was no collusion between witness, his wife, and Steir in the matter of the assault. The appearance ef Mrs Stafford on the scene was perfectly unexpected by witness and Steir. Neither witness nor Steir attacked or attempted to attack Gower. The defendant Steir being put in the witness box, narrated a conversation ho had had a fortnight before the alleged assault, with the complainant Gower. Witness said “ That is a fine wife that Stafford has.” Gower replied, “ She is not his wile, she is only living with him.” Upon this the witness thought it his duty to acquaint Mrs Stafford with what Gower had said about her. Gower afterwards denied his own words. Had never assaulted Gower, only called hire a liar when he denied what he had said about Mrs Stafford. In cross-examination, the witness stated that the expression lie hud made use of to the complainant in Bryce’s shop, that “ Perhaps ho might not work again, referred to a threat of legal proceedings by Stafford, which might result in the locking- up of the complainant. It had no reference to the assault. The evidence of the third defendant, Kate Stafford, was corroborative of the alleged language made use of by the complainant. The witness admitted assaulting the complainant, but held that she was justified by the slanders he had uttered about her. What she had done she bad done on her own responsibility, and without the connivance of her husband or Steir. Seven months previous

she bad warned Gower not to come into her husband’s shop, or she would spoil his face for him. This was because he came to and fro Bryce’s and her shop as a common talebearer. In answer to Mr Thomas, the witness said it was the first time she had used a horsewhip on a man, but on the same provocation she would do it again. The Bench wore of opinion that the whole affair arose out of the miserable tittle-tattle of the defendant Steir as to certain expressions alleged to have been made use of by Gower, which were denied on oath There was nothing proved in the way of assault against Steir. With regard to Mrs Stafford, she must learn that while she was justified in defending her reputation, she must not adopt such means as she had done to defend it. She would be fined 60s, Steir 40s, and the charge against Stafford dismissed, Stafford would also have to bo bound over in the sum or £2O for his wife to keep the peace for the space of six months, or in default she would suffer one month’s imprisonment. Steir would also be bound in his own recognizance to keep the peace for the tamo period.