THREATENING AND ABUSIVE LANGUAGE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 450, 11 February 1909, Page 3

THREATENING AND ABUSIVE LANGUAGE.

Police v. F. S. Easton.

Defendant Fined £5 and

Costs.

At the Court on Tuesday, before Mr A. D. Thomson, S.M., Frederick Spencer Easton, flaxmiller and farmer, was charged by the Police that on the 4th day of February, 1909, at Foxtou, he did use threatening, abusive and insulting words and behaviour in a public place, to wit Main Street, towards one Frederick Woods, within the hearing and view of passers by, whereby a breach of the peace might have been occasioned. The words alleged to have been used were _ as follows: —“Well, Woods, have you any more b lies to tell; you are nothing but a b liar and a thief; I will make it b hot for you; I will get you the sack,” shaking his clenched fist at the same time. /

Constable Woods conducted his own case and Mr Cohen and appeared for the defendant. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Constable Woocls stated in evidence that on the 4th February he went into the Bank of New Zealand, leaving his horse outside. After doing business he came out and met Easton on the road. He said to witness: “Well, Woods, have you any more b lies to tell ?” Witness replied: “Thank you. I don’t know that I told any lies. You had better be careful what you say to me in a public place. Easton then said : “You are a b- liar and a thief,” (shaking his clenched fist in witness’ face). Woods said: “I’ll make it warm for.you. I’ll bring you before next Court.” Easton then said: “I’ll make it hot for you and get you the sack, you are nothing but a b liar.” Woods replied: “I’ll make it hot for you and tame you down a bit, I don’t want any more to say to a thing like you.” Woods then got on his horse and rode away. During the whole time Easton was shaking his clenched fist in prosecutor’s face. Had he been a stranger I would have arrested him, but being a settler brought him up on a summons. Two persons named McDowell and Prew were standing about 25 and 30 yards away. McDowell came to witness directly afterwards, and spoke to him. The officials in the Bank could not hear what passed. Cross-examined by Mr Cohen : We were on the footpath. Did not see Easton on Friday. Could not say whether I saw him on Saturday last. Issued the summons on Friday, and had it served yesterday by Constable Sweeney. Told Mr Reade, whom I understand is Easton’s solicitor, on Saturday of summons, and asked if he would accept service. He replied that Easton would be in later and that I had better serve him personally. Mr Cohen objected to the short notice.

The S.M.; Defendant has the benefit of your services. There was a case last Court day, Inspector of Factories v, Easton. Didn’t know Easton was dissatisfied with complainant’s' evidence in that case. Spoke to Easton in the Post Office, and informed him that Bock would call and see him. Easton took no notice, but walked out of the Post Office. Had said that he wondered why Easton was cutting him. Did not say on the 4th inst to Easton: “Good day, Easton.” Easton began the conversation outside the Bank, Easton did not say to witness: “Goand speak to your equals.” Did not ask Easton what the trouble was about till after he had called me a b liar. Easton was not drunk, but excited. Didn’t say he had been drunk. Asked what the trouble was about because of the way he got on to me. My position prevented me from dealing with him as I felt inclined. I may have said he was a liar, after he had called me one. I said: “You’re another. He did not say to me : “You would have made me sit up long ago if you had had the opportunity.” Saw no one directly opposite where we were standing. Did not see Broad there. Easton did aot shout, but spoke loud enough for me to hear. Easton went into the Bank first and also came out first. The affair lasted one or two minutes.

John McDowell, labourer, in evidence, said he remembered the date in question. Was standing opposite the Church of England gate. Saw Easton’s motor car outside the Bank on the side of the street. Saw Easton standing by his motor on the road on the far side of the footpath. Was 30 or 40 yards away, in company with Mr Prew. Saw Constable Woods take his horse’s bridle on his arm and go to speak to Easton, who r was three or four yards further away. Could not hear what was said. Saw Easton lift his arm and shake his clenched fist at Constable Woods.

Cross-examined by Mr Cohen: Had good eye-sight. Easton had his back to witness. • Would swear Easton’s fist was clenched.

To the Magistrate: Easton left his car and moved a little towards Woods. After, Woods rode away. Saw Woods at the Post Office about half an hour later and spoke to him.

William Prew, labourer, gave corroborative evidence. Easton had his fist closed and was shaking it. Easton seemed to be leaning on the saddle of Woods’ horse. Heard no words.

Cross-examined by Mr Cohen : Easton was nearest to me. His was towards me. There

were a lot of people knocking about the street, but didn’t notice whom they were. Constable Woods said he desired to call P. T. Robinson in reference to the language used by defendant to Robinson and Inspector Culver after the last Court sitting. This was objected to by Mr Cohen.

For the defence, Mr Cohen referred to the fact that the language used by the prosecutor in calling Easton a liar and a “ thing was sufficient provocation to make defendant clench his fist. The constable should have remembered his diguity. Since the recent Court action defendant had not spoken to the constable, and when the constable had spoken to defendant the latter had turned on his heel and taken no notice of him.

Frederick Spencer Easton, defendant, farmer, stated that he had a case on the nth January, and was not satisfied with Woods’ evidence, and made up his mind to have no more to say to him. Passed him several times on the footpath, and had cut him. In the Post Office about a fortnight ago Woods came to speak to me, and I walked away from him. I believe he told one or two persons that he couldn’t understand why I cut him. On the 4th February I was in the Bank between two and three o’clock. Was in there before Woods. Did not speak to him when he came in, nor he to me. I came out first. When Woods came t out I was turning the wheel to start the car. Woods said: “ Good day, Easton.” He had his bridle on his arm then, and approached me. I looked up, and said; “Go and speak to your equals. Don’t speak to me.” He then asked me what all the trouble was about. I was quite cool. I said : “ After what you swore last Court about not seeing the Factories Act up in my mill I didn’t think much of you.” I also said that the night before last Court day he handed me a similar notice to the one he had seen in my mill. He said: “You are a d liar. The one I posted you I did not see in your mill.” I said you are a bigger liar. He repeated it back to me. lam sure the word b — ; was never used — absolutely. “ If this was my last moment —

Mr Cohen : Never mind your last moment. He then said he would warm me up and' that I was nothing more than “ a d thing,” and repeated calling me “a thing.” 1 said you would have warmed me up long ago if you had had the opportunity. I have a habit of holding up my finger. The horse was between us. Did not shape with the idea of hitting Woods —not at all. It was farthest from my thoughts. Did not clench my fist. — I have got more respect for myself than that. Broad, Symons and Reeves were standing opposite. If I was excited half the town would have heard me. Did not call Woods a thief—no need to do so.

Cross-examined by Mr Woods: Did not say about a week previous that Woods was a “ thief and a liar.” There are several poor fellows at my mill who have been over charged mileages on suramones. He denied having been knocked down in the Post Office Hotel during a recent election by a man named N for having called him a b liar. If that were so he asked the constable why he had not taken action against him. The constable stated that he was prepared to take action, but that the man who knocked him down did not desire to appear in Court.

He informed the constable that he would not accept any favours from him.

Constable Woods: You might not after this (laughter). He denied being drunk one night and the constable telling him to get out of town. He was not ashamed to admit that he could take a drink, but he could get people to sign a petition that they had never seen him drunk. He admitted that information had been laid against him some years ago for having used obscene language and added ‘ that was my lesson.’ He denied having said that he held the key of Foxton in his hand and would make the workers eat grass. He was not so narrow minded- Many people were jealous of his position. Did not call Culver and Robinson b liars after last Court. I did not stop the wheel and turn to you and say : “ Any more b lies Woods.”

William Cook, acting manager for Bank ; Was in the Bank on the date in question. Window was open. Was not attracted by anything outside. Heard noise of words but did not hear actual words.

Cross - examined by Woods There was a screen at the window

E. E. Broard, flaxmiller, of Oroua Bridge, saw defendant near the Bank of New Zealand on the date in question. Did not hear anything. James Symons, farmer, corroborated the previous witnesses’ evidence.

In giving judgment the Magistrate said that the witnesses’ did not hear the bad language complained of, but he did not think it affected the case. Insulting language had been used by both parties. The only evidence as to the actual words is by the parties themselves, and the question is who began them, and as the parties are in conflict I must to some extent be guided by the probabilities. Taking these into account I have no hesitation in accepting the evidence of the constable as correct, and that the abusive language was first used by defendant. I am satisfied that he called the constable both a liar and a thief before

the constable retaliated in any way. Easton felt that he had a grievance against the constable over a recent court action and he let his tongue run away with him. Witnesses, even though not public officers, must be protected from this sort of thing. The defendant would be fined £5 and costs 235. Mr Cohen : Will you make the fine £5 is. The S.M. : I’ll do nothing of the sort.