THE CHARWOMAN SCANDAL. Verdict Against Thomas V. Byrne.

Free Lance, Volume I, Issue 10, 8 September 1900, Page 6

THE CHARWOMAN SCANDAL. Verdict Against Thomas Y. Byrne.

IT would have been just as well for Thomas Vincent Byrne, barrister and solicitor, and Mayor of Kumara, if he had refrained from stirring the dirty water surrounding the famous charwomen scandal, in his anxiety to make profit from damages. For though he succeeded in squeezing sums of money out of two or three timid newspapers, under threats of litigation, and snatched a verdict of J>so from another, he has brought his own behaviour in that unfortunate occurrence into the strong light of public scrutiny. • * # The verdict for £150 damages, which the jury has just brought in against Byrne, in the case in which Mrs Hicks, one of the charwomen, sued him for slander, is open to only one interpretation. The jury has found that on the occasion of the scandalous occurrence on Lambton Quay, Byrne called the women prostitutes. And yet Byrne has been posing for twelve months as a wronged individual, who had no complicity in this assault upon the women, and has stoutly denied upon oath again and again the use of this language, notwithstanding the sworn evidence of the police and other reliable witnesses. The inference is obvious. * • » Margaret Hicks deserves the admiration of the country for her spirited action in establishing the connection of Thomas Vincent Byrne with this Lambton Quay episode, and, at the same time, vindicating her own good character, which is a woman's dearest possession. There was a strong feeling of dissatisfaction in Wellington at the result of the case in the Eesident Magistrate's Court, and a storm of indignation swept over the city when the verdict in the Observer libel action was made known, but the issue in the present case was a simpler and more direct one. Mrs Hicks accused Byrne of injuring her reputation by calling her a prostitute. The verdict of

the jury is that he did call her a prostitute. * * • And, accepting this verdict, what can be thought of a man in Byrne's high position who would use such language to any woman, be she charwoman or duchess. Poverty is no crime, and the very fact that a woman is poor, and is compelled to be out at an early hour of the morning in order to earn a living, ought to excite the sympathy of a man — with the heart of a man — and entitle her to his protection rather than prompt him to insult and humiliate her by the use of language both foul and blackguardly. # * * Sir Robert Stout said in his summing up in the Ofoei iei case that if Bryne used this language to the charwoman, the comment of the newspaper proceeded against was very mild indeed. Now, it has been decided by a jury on the direct issue that Byrne did use the language. And yet the Observer was held to have libelled Byrne, and was mulcted in a £50 verdict, and costs to the extent of several hundreds. Striking commentary upon our libel law, which punishes the press for moderate criticism, even in the public interest. • # • Further issues of a serious character are involved in this decision. The jury have decided that Byrne called this woman a prostitute. Kow, under the Police Offences Act it is punishable only by imprisonment to use obscene, indecent, or profane language in a public place. Does this language of Byrne's not come within the meaning of the Act ? • And, if so, what action does the police propose to take ? Also, Michell having candidly admitted that he used similar language, what action is to be taken against him, also under the Police Offences Act ? # # # Then, again, Byrne has repeatedly sworn upon oath that he did not call the women prostitutes, notwithstanding a mass of evidence to the contrary. The jury on Tuesday found that he did use the language. Now, in the interests of justice, we ask whether any action is to be taken by the proper authorities against Thomas Vincent Byrne on the charge of perjury ? It is undesirable that this matter should be allowed to rest where it is. Several of the witnesses have sworn that when Byrne was arrested, he boasted of his great political influence. That he did not boast vainly was shown subsequently by the interest displayed on his behalf when he was in the lock-up by a distinguished political personage. What the public will want to know now is, whether that political influence will protect Byrne from the prosecution that should logically follow the verdict given against him on Tuesday.