ALLEGED ABUSIVE LANGUAGE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 1058, 1 February 1913, Page 3

ALLEGED ABUSIVE LANGUAGE.

TO A CONSTABLE.

CASE DISMISSED.

At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Mr J. W. Poyuton, S.M., Frederick Spencer Easton was charged by the police with, on January 21st, using abusive and insulting language within the hearing of passersby in a public place, to wit, Whyte Street, with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace may have been occasioned. The words alleged to have been used were, “You dirty white mongrel, and your mate Woods is a black mongrel." Constable Woods conducted the case on behalf of the police, and defendant was represented by Mr Cooper, of Palmerston North. In opening the case Constable Woods said that on the date in respect of which the present proceedings were being taken Con stable Sweeney served defendant with a summons in Whyte Street, when the words complained of were used. Easton, when served with the summons, was in Whyte Street, but when he used the words he backed close to Whyte’s Hotel, being then on an unfeuced portion of the hotel property, which is used as a public footpath, forming part of Whyte St. The language used could be heard in Main street and was heard by three constables and others;

Constable Sweeney stated that at about n o’clock on the night of January 21st, he had a summons to serve on Easton. He was accompanied by Constables Woods, Martin aud Watts at the time and seeing defendant’s car outside Whyte’s Hotel he went over to serve the summons, asking the other constables to either accompany him or remain within hearing. They remained at the coruer of Whyte and Main Streets, aud witness walked over to where Easton and some others were standing. Witness said to defendant, “Mr Easton, I want to speak to you a moment,” to which he replied, “What do you want with me ?” Witness then had his back to the other men and took the summons out ot his pocket. Easton said, “I won’t take it; give it to me to-morrow.” Witness said he placed the summons on Eastou's arm aud it fell to the ground and he again said, “I won’t take it.” Witness replied, “You can leave it on the ground for my part.” Defendant then picked the summons up and said, “You dirty white mongrel and your mate Woods is a black mongrel.” Witness asked, “Have you anything further to say Easton ?” but he did not reply. As witness walked away he told him he would hear more about it. To Constable Woods: When he made use of the language defendant was standing on the ground just outside the side door of the hotel and witness was about 12ft from the building. He asked the other constables to remain within hearing when he served the summons, because from what he knew ol Easton he had been in the habit of insulting Constable Woods whenever he had occasion to serve a summons on him aud the other constables were there in case their evidence should be needed.

To Mr Cooper: The other constables were in full uniform and were standing in Main Street. Witness could see them from where he was standing. Had the summons in his possession for service for ttfo or three days. Did not see Easton in town on the Monday. Did not go out to his bouse that day because he was otherwise engaged. Did not know Easton had been at the hotel that night- until he saw his motor car outside. Had called him aside to serve the summons on him. There was up chance of witness striking Easton. The car was between them and witness did not lose his temper. The information was laid the following Friday. It was not laid on account of Easton speaking sharply to witness on the racecourse. On that occasion witness said be told Easton to mind his own business. Witness certainly resented the manner in which Easton spoke to him on the racecourse, and he also resented being called a mongrel. Constable Woods got into the box to corroborate the evidence as to the use of the words complained of, but Mr Cooper said they would admit the use ot the words, but contended the case should be dismissed as the language was not used in a public place, nor within the hearing of passersby, as there was no evident to show that anyone passed by at the time. Further, from the constable’s own evidence he admitted that there was no chance of a breach of the peace being committed. The case had been brought simply for spite. Constable Woods said they had brought the case forward in order to bring the defendant up to his bearings. He was most unbearable and had been previously convicted for the same offence. He hadn’t a friend in the town.

Mi Cooper objected to anything but the legal aspect being touched upon and the Magistrate upheld the objection. Continuing, Constable Woods said the language was heard by the constables in Main Street and also by Dr. Mandl. If the facts bad been denied the evidence of these people could have been obtained. - The Magistrate said that he did not think the words were used with the intention of proyoking a breach of the peace. He didn’t suppose defendant meant to instigate the constable to attack him and the case would therefore be disposed.