RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT REEFTON.

Inangahua Times, Volume III, Issue 86, 7 March 1877, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT REEFTON.

Monday, March, sth, 1877. [Before Edwabd Shaw, Esq., X.M.] ABUSIVE LANGUAGE. James Aiken appeared to answer the information of Louis Davis, charging him with using insulting and nbusive language, calculated to provoke a breach of the i peace. 1 Mr Pitt, who appeared for the defendant, denied the charge. Mr Staite oonducted the case for the informant. Louis Davis — I am a sharebroker residing in Eeefton, and recollect the eventing of the Ist March. There was a performance on that evening (or the benefit of the Hospital, and I, being a member of i the Hospital Committee, was requested to ! take froDt seat tickets, and did so. Messrs Smith and Damaskey came in and produced front seat tiokets, and the defendant followed them and poshing his i way past squeezed in between them in the same seat. He produced no ticket; at all. I went into the seat where he was and said that I would trouble him for his ticket. Hfl showed me a portion of a ticket which he held in hi 9 hand, and which should have been given me at the door. I informed him that it was a back seat ticket he had, and that he would have to retire to the back. He then said " What the b h have you got to do with it ?" I said I had this muoh to do with it, that he would either have to get another ticket or leave the front seats. People sitting near him adrised him to pay the difference, and he said " Go to h t " A few minutes after defendant clambered over the back of the seat into the back rows, and as he did so used the language complained of, which oonld be heard by the people as they oame along. He finally took up a seat just behind me and continued in the same strain. He further added that " he would like to have five minutes at me." Am quite sure about the language made use of. I did not say anything insulting to defendant, but merely asked him for his ticket, and said that he could not sit there without one. For the past six months defendant has been in the habit of abusing me. Cross-examined—There weie ladies in the hall sitting not very far from where the defendant sat, and while he was speaking everybody in the room turned round and looked in the direction of the disturbance. Mr Walsh was sitting two or three seats away from us. Have not the least doubt as to the language used. Henry Rainbow— l am a miner, and recollect being in Dawson's Hall on Thursday evening last. Saw both complainant and defendant there. Heard strong language used by defendant. Davis was taking tickets. Defendant came in and passed Davis, and the latter went up to him and demanded the ticket. Defendant used strong language, saying that if he only had five minutes at complainant he wosld smash his ugly mug. I did see Aiken sit in the front seats. Not the slightest provocation was given to Aiken.

By the Bench-The disturbance lasted , t for some time, and all the language used by defendant was abusive. Defendant * was quite sober. This closed the case. The samedefendant waa further charged by the same informant with using insulting and abusive language in the public y streets, to wit, Broadway, Eeefton, by making use of the following expressions : ( «< Well, my noble b , what did you make last night P You would not | have been there unless you could make . something." , Louis Davis—On the morning of the 2nd March I was walking down Broadway, j near the Bank of New Zealand. Defendant was standing at his door, and as I passed down the middle of the street he called after me and used the language complained of. I said to him, " It is time I put a stop to this, and I shall I bring you before the magistrate, and proceeded at once to the Court-house. Defendant made an uncomplimentary remark about the Magistrate as I was leaving Tross-examined— lt was about 11 o'clock in the day. I came to the Court to lay the information, but it was sitting. Somebody was standing inside defendant's [ store at the time the language was used Did not s«e defendant until he spoke, and at first was not aware he was addressing me, but I turned round and said " What's that you say ?" He replied a b . good hiding would do me good, and that he had a good mind to give me a horsewhipping in the public street. Anthony Kater— -I was coming from the Court House on the morning of the 2nd inst. and saw both plaintiff and defendant in the street. Defendant sang oat across the street to Davis, " Did you collar any money last night?" Davies did not seem to understand what was said, and put a question to defendant. I did not hear any swearing or indecent and abusive language. There was another charge against defendant, for using threatening and abusive language, and prajing for sureties of the pease. Louis Davies- — There is ill-feeling on the part of defendant towards me. I judge so from his conduct and language towards me during the last six months. The language he has used towards me has been most vile, and lie has frequently threatened to assault me. On the Ist in» stant he threatened that he would make me so that my frends would nol know me, and that lie would pull my nose off. From the threats he has used towards me I fear that he will assault me. For some time past I have been obliged to walk on the side of the street opposite to defendant's store. I did not lay tbo information out of malice. ♦ Cross-examined — I was never on good terms with defendant. Joseph Smith^-I was present in Dawson's Hall on the evening of tbe Ist March. Saw the plaintiff and defendant there. Heard strong language used. Heard Davies ask lor defendant's ticket, and believe that the ticket was a back seat oce, and defendant was requested to retire. Could not hear exactly what passed, as they were mumbling. The language alleged may have been used bat I did not hear it. Henry Rainbow— Heard the language complained of used, and this morning wrote it down on a piece of paper. Will swear positively that every word written down was used by defendant towards complainant on the evening in question. That is only about one-third of what was said. By the Bench— Swear distinctly that all the language written down was made use of by defendant. This closed the evidence for the infor* mant. James Aiken — I was at Dawson's Hall on Thursday evening last. I entered in company with Mr Smith, and we walked into the first vacant seat near the door. Will swear distinctly that I did not know that I had seated in the front seats. The place was thronged, and it was difficult to get a seat. Davies came up to me and asked me for the balance, and he said it in a bullying tone which got me out of temper. I may have said to him that he deserved to get his nose pulled. Mr Smith was alongside of me at the time. I would have returned at once but for the manner in which complainant spoke to me. He threatened police to me, and that got me out of temper. On the next day I was standing at my door talking with Mr Willcox, and complainant passed. I said to him—" Well, did you make & rise last night ? You would not have been there unless there was something to be made." He is cool, and always tries to get me out of temper so as to commit myself. I have not tbe least animosity towards him. Cross-examined— He demanded the ticket in a bounceable manner. To the best of my belief I did not make use of the language imputed to me. Whatever I said I spoke in a low tone of voice. I may have said that he deserved to have ihis nose pulled. As a matter of fact Ido not like complainant. Have seen so much of his pointing that I do not like him. He has been doing me all the harm he possibly could. He goes about so cool, and gels me out of temper. William Walsh— l was at Da r son's Hall on the evening in question, and saw both Aiken and Davie3. Heard defendant

say something about pulling Davies' nose I did not take any particular notice of what passed. Saw Davies go up to Aiken twice, and heard him threaten to fetch the police to Aiken. By the Bench : The parties part of the time were on the opposite side of the Hall from where I was sitting. I cannot say what provocation was given. J. B. Willcox : I was standing near the Bank of New Zealand talking with defendant when Davies passed down the middle of the street. Aiken asked Davies if he made a rise last nigbt, and I at once walked away. As I was taming the corner I heard Aiken say, •' You wonld not have been there unless there was some* thing to be made." Had heard of the disturbance of the previous evening, and that is why I walked away when Aiken spoke. This closed the case, and Mr Pitt said it was not his intention to go into a long defence. He would state plainly that he was not there to justify language such as that imputed to defendant. Defendant totally denied the charge, and it did not appear that the evidence of the com» | plainant bad been borne ont sufficiently to warrant the Court in upholding the information. | The magistrate said that one could not ' help considering the case as a most un* fortunate one. It seemed that it was the outcrop of a long standing animosity between the parties. Mr Davies' position at the concert was manifest. He was as* sisting a public charity, and bis position forced certain duties upon him, and it was incredible to suppose that defendant could have thought that a back seat ticket j entitled him to a front seat, and it was his ! duty to have returned whpn his mistake was pointed out. Defendant himself ad» mitted tbat he was in a passion, and that be did use certain expressions. It certainly did not appear that complainant had used any langaage of an insulting nature. The evidence of Eainbow was conclusive that the language used on the occasion by defendant was too gross to be repeated in a Court of Justice where none but males were present. I cannot see anything that would justify me in discrediting the evidence of Eainbow, and I am therefore reluctantly driven to the conclusion that defendant did use all the language imputed to him. As to the remarks made in the public street, there could be no doubt that they were also made, with the insinuation that complainant had as» sisted at the concert with the object of putting money into bis own pocket. Whatever may have been defendant's opinion upon that head, he had no right to give expression to it in public. It was a painful duty to so warmly stianv»fi>e tlie language and conduct of a man holding the position of defendant, but he (the Magistrate) felt that he wonld be failing in his duty to the public if he allowed such conduct to go unpunished. The conduct was most ualieard of, and if it was to be tolerated in a place of public entertainment, no respectable man would venture into the place. He was willing to accept it that defendant was under the influence of passion at the time, but the offence against public decency and public morals remained the same. However strongly the parties might feel against each other, they should not obtrude this feeling upon the public. On the first charge defendant would be fined £10,. with £4 4s costs. The second charge \ would be dismissed, and on the third i charge defendant would be bound over to keep the peace towards complainant for a period of six months, himself in £100 and two sureties of £50 each.