LARRIKINISM.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2674, 1 November 1882, Page 3

LARRIKINISM.

BRUTAL OUTRAGES BY ROWDIES

At the Resident Magistrate’s Court this morning, before C. Whitofoord, Esq., R.M., Thomas W. Haddrell, Jas 1 . Mullorman, Harry Hudson, Thomas Yates, alias Wilson, Thomas Dennis, Alfred Buckley, and Samuel Dennis, young men in good clothes, were charged with several offences. The first taken was the larceny of some bottled beer from the house of one Annie Jerome, valued at £1 10s. Mr Holmes appeared for accused. Inspector Pender conducted the prosecution. Annie Jerome, a married woman, deposed that her husband is named Jerome Cullen, a bookmaker. She keeps a brothel in Gordon street. A woman named Mulholland lives with her. There are no men living in the house. On Sunday night last, at about eleven o’clock while ill in bed, a knock came to the door, which was opened by Mrs Mulholland, who said to some one “ don’t come in here.” Witness saw the whole of the accused. They forced their way in. She got out of bed, and followed them into a sitting room. One of them, Buckley, began playing with three cards. They were very noisy. Witness asked them to leave. She appealed to their manliness. They helped themselves to the contents of a cupboard, beer and ale. She told them they could take what they wanted if they would only be quiet. They did not ask for beer before they took it. Witness was induced to promise them beer because she was frightened. When she remonstrated some one of them said he would “ smash her jaw.” Also they were very indecent. Mullerman picked up a fruit basket, and threatened to smash a pier glass. She prevented him. They took in all twentythree quart bottles of beer. Its value was about .£1 10s. They carried away some of the bottles. Haddrell said it was a shame to treat her so. He took no part in the proceedings of the others. Cross-examined —Haddrell tried to induce the others to leave. She could see from her bed both the front door and the interior of the sitting room. Mrs Mulholland told her that accused had not paid anything for the beer they took. Thos. Dennis saw her next morning, and asked her to “ square it.” She said to him, “ Tommy, you should not have treated me like this, after me giving you the beer. ’ There was a visitor in the house at the time of the outrage, and a cabman came in shortly afterwards. She never charged them with stealing the beer, which she gave them freely, and if they had not smashed some of her furniture she would not have made the charge to the police. Mr Holmes said that in the face of this evidence he must ask the case to bo dismissed.

His Worship said, without expressing any opinion as to the conduct of accused, he could not see any use of going any further. Inspector Pender said the evidence of the witness was very different to the statement made to the police. He would ask for Mrs Mulholland to be heard. Ellon Mulholland sworn, corroborated Mrs Jerome’s statement as to the forcible entrance. She tried to prevent them, but they forced past her. They wanted drink. Witness said they had none. Some of them said they would choke her and Mrs Jerome if they did not get it. She then got some bottles out of the cupboard, and afterwards they helped themselves to the extant of twenty-three bottles. Cross-examined She gave the beer because they were rowdy, and she was frightened. Haddrell was quiet, and tried to restrain the others. His Worship here said that, as far as this charge was concerned, Haddrell was discharged. This was the case for the prosecution. The Magistrate said ho thought the offence did not come under the Larceny Act. Mrs Jerome had said she gave the beer to the accused. The accused wore then discharged. The next case was against the same accused for having, with menacing language, demanded fifteen glasses oi beer with intent to steal the same. Pauny Edgar, a single woman, living at the house of a Mrs Weston, deposed that on Sunday last, at about 9 p.m., the accused came to the house, where she was alone. They demanded beer. Bucklejsaid if she did not give it he would “ shy” something through the mirror. She then brought them beer twice. They all partook °of it with the exception perhaps of Dennis. The beer belonged to Mrs Weston. They stayed on, used very bad language, and wanted more beer, which, however, she refused. The language was filthy, but was not threatening. On the application of Mr Holmes the case was dismissed, as not coming uudexthe Act. The accused were then charged with wilfully damaging private property, and with using obscene language in a public place. Jessie Chambers, living in Strickland street, next door to Mrs Weston, deposed that she was a married woman. She had been living apart from her husband for six years. She had no protection order. Mr Holmes objected that in that ease she could not bo the owner of property ; it must bo her husband s. Inspector Bonder said that would operate if the case was a claim for damages. A penalty was sought lor here. ! The case proceeded. The witness went on to say that on last

Sunday night at about ten o’clock the accused w-.nt into her house, and demanded beer. She said she had no beer.

They said they would not go away unless they got some. She still refused. Samuel Dennis said, “ Do not make a row here, come and give the others a turn.” They then went away, and some time after midnight returned. She heard them talking, and looked out. She «aw Thomas Dennis pick up a stone, and she hoard some glass ■mash. She afterwards found two panes of

glass broken and a tumbler. While smashing tho windows they were all swearing together and making use of most filthy language. Samuel Dennis tried to take the others away. Cross-examined—lt was a fine moonlight night. S. Dennis and Haddrell did not make use of had language. John W. Crabtree, living near the previous witness, deposed to hearing the noise created by accused, as detailed by her. He got out of bod and had a good view of them. He hoard them demand beer. Afterwards, on the second visit, they were all standing together, and he saw some of them break the window. He heard the whole of them, he believed, make use of most filthy language. Witness’ house adjoined Mrs Chambers’. This was the case.

Mr Holmes addressed the Bench. He submitted that Dennis and Haddrell must ho dismissed on the evidence of Mrs Chambers. The case against Haddrell was dismissed. Mr Holmes then submitted that the cases of tho rest must he all dealt with separately. Tho Magistrate considered they were all acting in concert. Thomas W. Haddrell was then called for tho defence. He stated that he got into tho company of tho others in trying to take care of Mullermau. Witness was sober; all the rest were more or less in liquor. He knew that on the second visit to Mrs Chambers, somebody broke a window, hut he could not say who did it. There was no attempt to get into the house then. S. Dennis did not make use of bad language. The others were doing so “ a little, nothing extraordinary.” The accused were then charged with wilfully and maliciously damaging the property to the value of £3, the property of Annie Jerome, the prosecutrix in one of the previous cases. Mr Holmes said the accused were willing to pay tho .£5.

Tho Magistrate said he could not allow tho case to ho settled in that way. The accused then pleaded guilty, the case against Haddrell being withdrawn. The property destroyed consisted of a chandelier, tumblers, looking glasses, &c. It had boon destroyed when as one of the witnesses expressed it, “ They were giving her a turn.”

Mr Whitefoord said there seemed to he nothing to choose between them except Haddrell, who seemed to have restrained himself somewhat, and would consequently escape. As to the others, they had behaved in a most disgraceful manner, and though escaping on a technical point, the consequences of the most serious charge must he substantially punished. They would he fined £Q each, and were ordered to pay the amount of damages, viz., £o to Mrs Jerome and £1 10s to Mrs Chambers, or to he imprisoned for twentyone days each, and kept to hard labor.