THE "Liberty" Fracas.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2298, 15 August 1881, Page 3

THE "Liberty" Fracas.

THE DEFENDANT FINED ONE SHILLING. At the R.M. Court this morning (before Messrs J. Ollivier, R. Westenra, J. E. Parker and J. Campbell, J.P.'s) Chater Miles appeared on information charged with having, on August sth, violently assaulted and beaten Montague Mosley contrary to the statute. Mr Holmes appeared for the plaintiff; Mr Herper for defendant. After opening his case, whioh he said was one of great importance ns disclosing a conspiracy, or at least a combination, on the part of some lawless spirits for the gratification of personal revenge, he should ask, if he proved his ceis, for the committal of the defendant, and not merely for the infliotion of a fine. Mr Holmes proceeded to detail at length the nature of the evidence he intended to produce, and called— Montague Moßley, who deposed that about 5 30 p.m. on August stb, he was in the composing room of the " Liberty" newspaper, when defendant, accompanied by some other person, came in, and asked for Mr Mosley. Plaintiff replied he was that person, and to a further question that he was the editor of the "Liberty." Defendant produoed a copy of the paper, dated July 9th, and pointing to the following paragraph asked if plaintiff had written it:

The Kelly Gang gave a dance to certain yonng ladies on Friday night. How did the youpg ladies like their hosts p irtaking so freely of spirituous liquors ? Mamas, take care of your daughters. Plaintiff said "No," but that he was the editor of the paper, and was responsible for it. Defendant, on boing asked, seid his name was Kelly, and then called plaintiff a " skunk," a " cur," and other opprobrious names, and plaintiff struck at defendant. Defendant returning the blow, knocked a pipe out of plaintiff's mouth. Mr Willis, who was clcse by, then came in, and a fracas ensued, in which blows were exchanged by all the parties. Defendant being foiled in his attempt to assault, again abused plaintiff.; Plaintiff then told him if he had asked for an explanation of the paragraph one would have been given. Defendant went away, and in about ten minutes returned with a whole crowd of men behind him—certainly six or seven, or there might have been a dozen. The room was small and, after their entrance, was crowded. Defendant then struck plaintiff on the side of the head and knocked him down and afterwards beat him severely, the effects of which were to be seen in outs and bruises for some days afterwards Plaintiff was so much engaged with defendant that he could not state exactly what was going on around him. He knew, however, that Mr Willis became involved in the melie, and some type frames were knocked over and the type scattered about the floor. After e while defendant said, "Have you had eisugh?" and then went away. Plaintiff had not written the paragraph, and did not know to whom it referred. He admitted that, as editor, he was responsible for the paragraph ; he had inserted it. Cross-examined by Mr Harper—Plaintiff had been editor of the " Liberty " five or six months. The paper had a correspondent in Timaru, who supplied the paragraph in question, under the heading of "Timaru whispers." That correspondent was not a paid one. The paper had some paid correspondents, but could get plenty of unpaid correspondents. [Mr Harper—" I have no doubt you could ."J Plaintiff knew the person who accompanied defendant the first time, but did not know any of those who came when|he returned. None of these parties struok plaintiff. They did not speak at all; merely looked on. The abuse used by defendant lasted for five minutes, and the words "cur" and "skunk" were freely used. Though he was responsible, plaintiff did not know to whom the paragraph referred. Plaintiff had not been in the habit of inserting paragraphs from anonymous persons. He did sot know who was Kelly, or who were the Kelly gang, until he employed Mr Feast to find out the Christian name of the person who had called himself Kelly. There had not been any previous eirr'ler assaults on plaintiff. He swore that positively. He had not succeeded in striking his ussailant, though he struck at him. He did not lift his stick, or set any other person on to defendant.

James Williß, part proprietor of the "Liberty," in his examination corroborated generally the evidence of the plaintiff. He heard the abuse, but could not remember the epithets applied to plaintiff. There were three others followed defendant into the room on the final assault, and there were more outside. Witness was considerably knocked about himself. He beoame engaged in the fray after he saw defendant strike plaintiff, who was bleeding badly about the head. Witness' part in the "engagement" was to try and protect plaintiff, and to save his own property from destruction. There were a i umber of cases knocked down, and a lot of type trampled on and broken. When he appealed to them the lookers-on said, addressing defendant, " Never mind the damage —go in and win." This encouragement was not addressed to witness and plaintiff. He did not know who made that remark. OroBS-sxaminei—Witness and Mr Dunlop, both proprietors of the paper, were present at the assault; nobody else was there. He had a stiok, with which he struck at defendant. Defendant did all the assault, and all the abuse. The language was filthy ; they did not catch the filth in the office; they must have brought it with them. Jameß S. Duxlop, part proprietor of the " Liberty," stated that we was present on the occasion of the first assault. He corroborated the evidence of the previous witnesses, and said further, that during the fray he himself left by the baok door—he thought discretion was the better part of valour [laughter]—and besides, Mr Willis had a big stiok. [Roars of laughter.] Witness went baok in time to see the second part of the row. While it was going on he was advised not to interfere, &•> his adviser thought it might make matters worse. Witness thought so too. [Loud laughter.] Witness went for a policeman, but, as usual, when wanted, there was none available. He found a policeman, but the offioial refused to go with him, as he had a prisoner to look after. Cross-examined—He did not run away. When he saw Willis and plaintiff opposing defendant, he thought they were quite good enough to defend themselves, and he went out to get a polioeman. Witness did not hear anybody else but defendant use threatening language. There were six or eight forming the " contingent" whioh followed defendant. He reoognised a person in Court as being one of the party. There was a carpenter in the room during the row. A. B. Power, carpenter, deposed to being present at both acts of the assault. His evidence was substantially the same as that of the previous witnesses. He saw defendant give plaintiff " a jolly pood hiding," "what 'Paddy gave the drum." [Laughter] Wit

ness did not interfere. " Not likely.' A person who was with defendant, on seeing Willis with a stick, offered other sticks to the combatants. They were deolined. Witness, in reply to the Bench, said he thought the scrimmage a very good one, and he "qmto enjoyed the fun." [Roars of laughter.] _ Mr Harper, addressing the Bench, said ho should not attempt to emulate the flowery speech with whioh his learned filend he i opened the oa«e. He would merely say that the facts of the assault as got out from the witnesses for the prosecution were fa'rly oorreot —not quite; but the difference was immaterial. As to the conspiracy, there wee not the slightest evidence of anything of the kind. The position of the defence was this : —They admitted having committed a simple assault under great provocation, whioh they would plead in mitigation of any damages whioh the Bench might think fit to award. There would be no attempt to justify the assault per le. But he had no doubt, after considering the evidenoe to be brought and tho circumstances, the Bench would concur in tho opinion that there had been great provocation. Chater Miles, the defendant, a resident of Timaru, said he went to the " Liberty" office on the afternoon of the sth of August. [Witness detailed the circumstances of the row ; his acoount did not differ materially from that given by the other side.] After defendant had struck Mosley, Willis struck him with a stick. Defendant, finding them both on to him, went down tho stairs and asked a friend to "see him through" this affair. They returned 'ito the composing immediately. Two other persons followed. No person but defendant took part in tho fray. Defendant knocked Willis end plaintiff down each twice. He also struck plaintiff several times in the face. Willis struck defendant with a stick. Defendant was one of a number of singles young men who resided together at a home in Timaru called Glenrown Cottage. From that circumstance they had been jestingly called by their intimate acquaintances, " The Ktlly Gang.*' On the night alluded to in the paragraph in the "Liberty" they gave a ball, at which there were, perhaps, fifty persons present. The ladies of the party were properly chaperoned, and there was no ground for any reflection on the behaviour of any one there. Defendant had not partiken of any spirituous liquors on that night. His friends probably had. Cross-examined—His attention wn called to the paragraph about a week after it appeared. He was very indignant about it. A month or so elapsed between its publication and the assault. He could not get to Christchuroh before. He came up to see the races. On the day of the assault he had been dr'-ik-ing; he might have had six or seven drinks, or perhaps more. He had never concealed his intention of thrashing the Editor, but on the day he had done so he did not etirt with that intention. Finding the office open as he passed by, he suddenly made up his mind to go and purpVh, plaintiff. He had not concerted ; n my way with his companions to beat plaintiff. Had not been lately taking boxing lessons. If he was famous for pugilism, it was unknot, j to himself. There were none of the Kelly gang either drunk or elevated on the right of the ball referred to in the "Liberty." There is not a particle of truth in the insinuation. Plaintiff asked defendant if he was Mr Kelly. Defendant said he was. He said that to show that he identified himself with the matter of the paragraph. While defendant was using the terms named to plaintiff the latter only said " Thank you, thank you." It was known to many persons in Timaru that defendant and his friends were nicknamed the Kelly gang. _ —Ferguson, thejNational Bank, Timaru, deposed to being at tho ba'l refolded to in the paragraph. Neither defendant nor any of his companions had partiken immoderately of spirituous liquors. He know all the - parties ; they were gentlemen of position and of strictly correct behaviour. He knew they i were jocularly called the Kelly Gang ; that ; soubriquet however had not been bestjwed on i account of unruly or rowdy habits. He ' thought the paragraph an atrocious libel, and caloulated to injure the defendant ' greatly. W. Hartland deposed to being asked by , defendant to see fair play. He went into the composing room at the "Liberty " office, but took no part in the fray whatever beyond that of a looker-on. Cross-examined—Defendant had been in the room previously with Cooke, another friend of defendant. When he came dowa the stairs, he said there were three or four of them-—meaning the "Liberty " men—one of them had a stiok, and that was not good enough for two. Witness intended, when he accompanied defendant, to prevent Willis or others, attacking him with a stiok. Witness would have interfered if that had taken place. He did not know that defendant was a " bruiser," and that plaintiff was no match for him. To the Benoh—The inter ml between the two visits of defendant ,to the composing room did not exceed two or three minutes. This was the whole of the evidence.

Mr Harper having declined to address the Court, Mr Holmes said he was sorry to be deprived of the opportunity of commenting on the statements made by the witnesses on the other side.

The Bench having retired for a shoiu time, on their return Mr Ollivier said the Bfnch had come to a unanimous conolusion in this case. There had undoubtedly been a violent assault committed, and the evidence showed that it had not the same excuse that many acta of violence of the same kind had. It had not been done in the heat of passion, but rather after delibeiate intention. He was sorry to see a young man in the position of Mr Miles brought there under such a charge, and he hoped the result would be a lesson to him in future to restrain his passions, and seek redress where, if he had a good case, he was sure to get it. As to the paragraph whioh was tke cause of the the assaulf, it was a most vile and disgusting production. He was soriy to see that the newspapsr whioh oontsined it. could find a Btanding in Ohristohuroh. [Applause.] These young men were quietly amusing themselves in their own way, when some scoundrel iteps in, and intruding on their privacy, published what was an atrocious libel, by which the injury done was more than could be estimated. The defendant would be fined one shilling. L'lioud applause. J Mr Holmes then, oa behalf of his olient, applied to have defendant bound over to keep the peace for six months, but after hearing the plaintiff, the application was refused. The utmost interest was manifested by the publio in the proceedings, the court house being inconveniently orowded throughout.