Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

GARROTING A MESMERIST.

a A 25 juki

At liiingiora on Tuesday last Harry Hilliard, Thomas Anderson, Harr}' Elliott, and Thomas Wilson were charged with unlawfully assaulting O. E. Hugo on the 9th inst. Mr Clark appeared for the prosecution. Mr Stringer for the defence. The accused pleaded “not guilty.” Oswald E. Hugo, who could hardly speak above a whisper, was placed close to the Bench. He said on the day in question he had returned to his lodgings at Webber’s boarding house after giving a lecture on mesmerism at the Literary Institute. When be went into the kitchen the accused wanted him to go into another room, and apologise for having said that the house was not a respectable one. Elliot and Jones both took hold of him and dragged him by the arms and hair into the dining-room, where those present threw him on the lloor. He called for help and tried to resist the attempts to place a rope over his head. They got it round his neck and drew it so tight as to injure his throat. He remembered nothing more after gasping for breath till he was again in the kitchen recovering from a sort of swoon, and they were standing over him,Hillier and the others using very bad language. When on the lloor he believed ho had been kicked. The accused all seemed to have been drinking. It was lI.JO when he went home, and about 12.30' when he recovered so as to realise his senses. Before the attack he heard a voice like Wilson’s say, “ don t mark Ids face.” When he recovered his coat had been pulled off and his shirt torn as produced. J3y Mr Stringer We were all fellow boarders. Had called the house a bad one, but apologised to Mrs Webber, as it was not her fault. Had not taken any stimulant except chlorodyno after my lecture. H. Truman, junr., gave cvidenc that two of accused marched the complainant into the dining room because he had called the house a bad one, and wanted him to apologise. After a scullle the lamp was upset and a rope was put over his head. They lit matches till a candle was brought, The rope was not tight. The accused sang a song “ Blow the man down ” or “ Lower the man down.” Complainant pretended to be senseless. He might have been in a faint. The accused were separated by Mr Webber who got in through a window. The rope was taken off after Hugo appeared to be insensible. JBy Mr Stiinger— Did not see any attempt to strangle complainant. They pretended to mesmerise him when he was senseless, and they could see his eyes moving. The accused were the worse for drink, but knew what, they were doing. J. Alford gave corroborative evidence, stating that two of accused were fanning complainant to bring him round, and that he complained of having received a kick. Hr McCarthy was called. He said complainant called on him on the 10th. He was in a nervous state—his throat much swollen, his voice indistinct, and there was an abrasion on his right temple. There appeared to have been violent pressure, as of hands or a rope, round his neck. It would be about live weeks before he recovered. Mr Stringer did not propose to call any rebutting evidence, but pointed out that complainant had brought the matter on by giving the house and those who lived there a bad character and refusing to apologise. While he wanted to make it appear he was insensible an hour the witnesses showed that the whole affair only lasted from ten minutes to twenty minutes, and the parlies, seeing the extent of (heir conduct, did what they could in fanning him to bring him round. The Bench retired, and on returning the Resident Magistrate said it was just a question whether they should send accused to gaol or give them the option of a tine. The offence of which they were convicted was a cowardly,wretched piece of business on the part of four men upon a man in a delicate state. The excuse that the affair was started in fun could not be entertained. They would each bo fined £-5 and ordered to pay costs, half the fine to go to complainant. The clerk stated that the amount due from each was £ts 7s. Hilliard announced that uone of them would pay. They, however, thought better of it, and during the day the tines were paid.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/SCANT18801216.2.18

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2418, 16 December 1880, Page 4

Word count
Tapeke kupu
754

GARROTING A MESMERIST. South Canterbury Times, Issue 2418, 16 December 1880, Page 4

GARROTING A MESMERIST. South Canterbury Times, Issue 2418, 16 December 1880, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert