THE CHARWOMAN SCANDAL. Judge's Summing Up.

Free Lance, Volume I, Issue 10, 8 September 1900, Page 4

THE CHARWOMAN SCANDAL. Judge's Summing Up.

ME JUSTICE EDWAEDS, in summing up in the action of Margaret Hicks versus Thomas Vincent Byrne, claim for slander, said the question for the jury to decide was — Did Byrne charge these women with being prostitutes ? If he did it was undoubtedly a wrong, and the plaintift was entitled to damages. As to the evidence, if; was entirely a question of credibility, and that was a matter solely for the jury to determine. The women were, of course, interested. Constable Colletts evidence was quite clear and specific, and if the jury believed him the case was established. His evidence was met by the evidence of Byrne — who gave a denial — and by Michel. The latter was undoubtedly a party to this gross and inexcusable outrage on these respectable women. Even if they were prostitutes, there was no justification for a person calling himself a nian behaving as was done on this night. The jury must remember that Michel was a person who was correctly described by the colonial word " larrikin " — and a larrikin of a very bad class. Michel was made use of now for the purpose of saying that he was present during the whole time that Collett was bringing Byrne across the road, and did not hear defendant use any of the words complained of. For Michel to have been there he must have left the Police Station with Sergeant Shirley, and walked towards the steps — going away all the time from the place where the fracas had taken place. It was for the jury, as reasonable men, to say whether the sergeant was likely to do that. They must also give due weight to the testimony of the two women, who said that Shirley came in their direction, which was certainly more likely. If they could not believe the evidence of either the two women or Michel, there was the evidence of Constable Collett, which was only met by the evidence of Byrne. His Honour thought it was his duty to point out that if Michel's story was false, and he did not meet Collett and Byrne at the Quay end of Mee's-lane, then Byrne must have known that, and when he put the man into the box he must have known he was putting him there for the purpose of committing perjury. However, that was a question entirely for the jury to decide as to credibility. If the jury came to the conclusion that the words were used, as Collett swore they were, then, of course, that really settled the matter, as if defendant called the women prostitutes three times before reaching the station, it was strongly probable that he said so again in the station — but in the street was enough. Comment had been made on Sergeant Shirley not being brought up for this case, but he did not know that it was more incumbent on plaintiff than on defendant to incur that expense. They also had it from defendant himself that if the sergeant had come up he would not have done the defence much good. His Honour pointed out that Michel, by cheerfully altering part of his story when told by the Court that it did not agree with what was said by another witness for the defence, had shown himself to be a very accommodating witness. If the jury was unable to make up its mind which side was telling the truth, then the defendant was entitled to a verdict. If a plaintiff got a verdict, it was for the jury to assess damages. It was not suggested by plaintiff in this action that Byrne committed the assault, and the jury would take it that of this he was entirely innocent. But he was one of the party, and it was in his knowledge that the others had interfered with the women. As he explained it, to get out of trouble he ran away, instead of going to the women's assistance, as one would think he would do. One would have supposed that as it was his companions who were maltreating the women, that would be the more reason for his interfering instead of running away. However, he did the latter, and under these circumstances when brought down by the constable, he should not do anything then that would be an outrage upon these women. He said he did not do any such thing, and sought to check Michel from doing so. If all that was correct, he was entitled to the jury's sympathy. If he used the words, the jury would take it into consideration in assessing damages. After forty minutes' retirement, the jury brought in a verdict for plaintiff for £150. Judgment was accordingly entered for plaintiff for iUSO, with costs according to scale.

The revised plan of the Kelburne Estate can be seen at the offices of Mr L. H. B. Wilson, 1, Grey-street. Those desirous of securing sections should pay him an early visit.