RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, FOXTON.

Manawatu Herald, Volume II, Issue 30, 5 December 1879, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, FOXTON.

»~ Wkonesday, PECRMnKn, 3, 1879. (Before R. Ward, Esq., R.M. and E. S. Thynm, Esq., J.P.) ABUSIVE AND THREATENING LANGUAGE. John Frederick Uockstrow was charged with using threatening and abusive language towards George Warren Russell on the 25tn November^last. * Before the case was proceeded with, Mr Ward informed the complainant that two charge. 3 wera contained in the information, and it would be lor him to elect which oh lrge he would take. Mr Russell asked, if in the event of one case being lost that would debar him from proceeding on the other t His Worship replied that it would not. Mr Rusaell then said he would take the case of threatening language. Mr Roekstrow then said the case was the outcome of strong paity feeling in Foxton, and whilst ha had the most implicit confidence in receiving justice at Mr Ward's hands, he asked under the 324 th section of " The Justice of the Peace Act " that Mr Thynne slioul'd not sit on the case, as that gentleman was one of his strongest opponents Mr Thynne said he did not think Mr Rockntrtnv had any reason to refer to him in that way. He had always bees most impartial in hia actions on the Bench, and recently had specially protected Mr Rookstrow aaainst attacks of a lawyer when a case was heard in that Court. Mr Ward said the matter was entirely with the Justici, and Mr Thynne said he should hear the case. Mr Ruckstrow pleaded not guilty. George Warren Russell, one of the proprietors of the Manawatu Herald, being sworn, said — On the 2nth November, I was passing from my office to Loudon's store ; I saw the defendant walking down the Btfeet in company with lit M'Oulloch ; as I came out of the door, defendant turned his head, and beckoned to me with his hand ; us we never speak, I took no notice, thinking the beckoning was for someone beyond me ; I continued on my way ; lookiug round I noticed tlu defendant was runuing towards me ; I still took no notice, and walked on ; he then called out my name, and I stood still until he come up to me ; he appeared to be extremely excited, and said something like this — " If you do not let tne alone in your paper I will punish you ; " he said he would not go to law to do it, and proceeded to abuse me ; after thU had gone on tor some time, I saw two persons standing on the path a few yards away ; I said to these men — " Did you hear that f" defendant had then turned his back to go towards 'Yhyte's Hotel; upon hearing me say this he turned round in a worse state of excitement then he was before, and held an enormous stick that be carries over my head, sayin ; — " You want to get me into n libel case, but I will not go to law with you; I will break my stick over your head ; " he then left, and lat once laid an information. Gross-examined by defendant— You are one of the proprietors of the Manawatu Herald, and also Editor ? — I am. * Defendant — Have you been connected with the Press long p— Since I was 11 years old. Defendant — Did you wri*e leading articles irben you were 1 1 years old f— There wera not such good oubjocta as you to write about then. Defendant — Were you ever pelted with rotten eggs and stones f — No ; I was struck by a fresh egg on one occasion, whilst; preaching. Defendant — Did any one ever say of yon that you should put over your door, " All kinds of twisting and turning done here? " •—Yes, Father Hentftebry did. . Defendant — Would not that sign be suitable now t — Yes, extremely so, if ,l lived in your house. Defendant— Don't you know that foreigners gesticulate a great deal when speaking ? — I have known a great many foreigners, but none who gesticulated with an enormous stick over a person's head. Mr Jiockstrow then proceeded to ask several questions regarding complainant's private career, with a view to showing that he had been reprimanded by his senior for writing scrurrilous articles when a member of the Wesleyan Miui^try, but Mr Russell branded any such statement as the above as a deliberate lie. In reply to defendant, Mr Russell also said that he never referred to defendaot's private character ; and would run the chance of a horse whipping in oriticising the public actions of any man; he did report the County Council proceedings, but never distorted them in the report. John James Murphy, a printer, said that on the day when the language complained of was used, he was passing along the street, and saw Mr Kockstronr walking quiokly after Mr Russell, at the same time waving his hands ; aluiOßt opposite the Court Honse he called out to Air Russell, but he did not stop ; Mr Rockatrow then ran up to Mr Russell, and after talking a little time to him went to move away ; on hearing Mr Russell speak to the two men he went back again and spoke to him, at the same time shaking his siick over his head in a very threatening manner ; defen- j dant then went down the street. * j By Mr Rockatrow — The only remark I ( beard wm about the libel ; my unpr«wion I ;

was that you went back after hearing Mr Russell speat to tho two man ; I am in the employ of flfessrs. Russell Bros. John Oliver Wilson, contractor, deposed — I was on tho footpath near the Courthouse at the time the affair occurred ; I saw Mr Russell going across from hi 9 office to Loudou's store ; I saw Mr ftockstrow going up towards him ; Mr Russell stood still ; Mr Rockstrow was excited, and Mr Russell was cool ; I only heard Mr Russell say " Did you hoar that ?" I then saw defendant raise his stick as high as Mr Russell's head, and heard him say, " If you interfere with me any more in your paper, I will knock you down with uiy stick ;" he was threatening Mr Russell right enough. By defendant — You always oarry a stiok ; I see you get rubbed down pretty often in the paper. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Kussell said if the Bench thought sufficient evidence had not been shown to convict, he would ask for an adjournment, in order that Mr (stower who saw the affair, and had been subpoenred, might bo called. That gentleman was at present in Wellington. The Benoh decided to hear tho defence. The defendant asked the Bench to decide if any defence was necessary. He could state that he always carried a stick ; and only used the language complained of after great provocation. The Bench said that a case had been made out, and they were prepared to hear the defence. Mr Sookstrow then went on to make a statement, in which he said that he had suffered great provocation from the complainant, who wrote for the Manawatu Herald. He had been subjected to this from (he starting of the paper some fifteen months ago ; and he would read paragraphs from the paper to show the great provocation under which he laborod, Mr Ward here pointed out that paragraphs which appeared some time before the threatening language was used could not be taken as evidence. A tnon might bo justified to a certain extent in abusing another man if he was irritated by seeing a paragraph in a newspaper ; but ho must uot sleep on his wrath. Mr Russell asked that defendant might be sworn, so that he (complainant) could have the opjortunity oi cross-examining him. His Worship said it was entirely at defendant* option whether he would be sworn or not. Of course the Court would attach greater importance to a statement on oath than to one not sworn to, but the Court could not compel defendant to take the oath. The defendant then asked if a paragraph appearing in the papor of that morning might be taken as evidence. An affirmative reply was given by the Bench, and Mr Rookstrow then stated that the paragraph that appeared in the issue of the 25th November referred to part of the evidence given by Mr Perreau in the case London v. Perreau. [Mr Rockstrow here read the part of the evidence referred to] He stated that be was very much annoyed with Mr Perreau for iuaking such a stdtcmen , when Mr Perreau said his reply to the lawyer's question was twisted and turned round by the reporter quite different from what it really was. Several poople who w«ire in the Court alao said the same. On hearing this, he felt very angry, but lie determined to forget it, when hia auger wiis again raised by seeing the paragraph in the following issue headed "Libel," referring to the matter again. When he saw Mr Russell he was very much excited by the paragraph, and told him that if he did not leave him alone he would horsewhip him. He said he did not defend himself ; he only wished to show th.it he had been systematically abased since the paper was started, and that his threat to the complainant on (hat occasion referred to anything that might be inserted in the paper after wards.and not to what had already appeared in the paper. If he had made up his mind tn Btrike Mr. Russell, nothing would have stopped him. He fully believed in the advantages of a free Press, as it was a blessing foreigners did not enjoy, but in cases where a mtin's affairs were alluded to in such a way that no redress was obtainable in a legal manner, there was an unwritten law which allowed a man to defend his honor, and no magistrate would fine a man for protecting his honor. A9 it was, no harm had been done in this case, and be was content to abide by the decision of the court. Mr. Russell asked if he could make a statement, but the Bench said it could not be allowed. After a lengthy consideration, the Benoh ■aid that there was no justification for the use of the language complained of ; a reporter could not be horsewhipped because he reported incorrectly v Court case. Even if the reporter had, as defendant alleged, incorrectly reported evidence in a cose, that was no reason why he should be threatened as had been proved. Had the report been wrong, defendant had other remedies. He oould either have contradicted thestatement, or have had a contradiction from the person said to have uttered the words. It would be a serious thing if all acted in tne same manner. ' It was very painful to have tp do so, but the Bench felt bound to inflict a fine of £1 and costs, £1 17s. On the decision being given, some applause was manifested, but it was promptly su ppressed by tho R. M. TUB FERRY CASE. Natana and three other natives were charged with having crossed the Manawatu River at a less distanoe than one mile from the ferry, and refusing to pay the usual toll. Mr Hawkins appeared for the defendants, and said he should require proof that it was a ferry under the meaning of the Act, and that it had b«en proclaimed as such. He should also require the best proof of Mr Bowe's appointment as ferryman. Mr Bowe handed in his lease and oonditions, which he had ieceived from the County Council. la answer to the Bench, Mr Bowe stated he had received the deed from the Clerk to the County Council. After inspecting the deed, the Bench pronounced it worthless as evidence, as the stamps should have beeu defaced on the deed being signed. Case dismissed, with costi, £l Bs, CIVIL CASES. P. Collins v. C. H. Collins.— Claim, £1 as, for labor. Judgment exparte for amount and costs, ss. F. K. Crowther v. Jno. Gillis. — Claim, £5 5s judgment sum nons. Ordered 10 be paid by January 1, 1880; in default, 14 days' imprisonment in Wanganui Huol. Same v. Thos. Morris— Claim £36 13* Bd, judgment summon*. Oidered to be paid at the rata of £4 per month ; in default, two months' imprisonment in Waaganui Uaol ; also to pay iOs expense iucurred in service of summons.