HORSEWHIPPING A “LIBERTY” CORRESPONDENT.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2638, 3 September 1881, Page 2

HORSEWHIPPING A “LIBERTY” CORRESPONDENT.

At the Dunedin Police Court on Thursday, before Messrs W. L. Simpson and H. S. Fish, jun., Edwin Marlow was charged, on the information of William Edward Rose, with assaulting him at Dunedin on August i°. Mr Macdonald appeared on behalf of the complainant, and Mr McDermott for the defendant. Mr Macdonald, in opening the case, said that the complainant was an assistant in Mr Earner’s fruit-shop in George street. On August 10, the defendant came into the shop and asked if he was Mr Lamer. The complainant replied that his name was Rose, whereupon the defendant accused him of being the writer of a scurrilous article about him which appeared in the “ Liberty ” newspaper. He then left the shop, saying that he would come back and give Rose a whipping. Shortly afterwards he came back with a horsewhjp and struck the complainant three or four strokes on the back with the whip. The complainant told the defendant that he was not the writer of the article in question. It would be for their Worships to say whether a man like this would be allowed to go about and inflict punishment on people in this manner. The complainant, William Edward Rose, was then called, and stated that he was a fruiterer dairying on business in Princes’ street South. He was employ ed as a shopman in Mr Lanier’s, George street, and his business was managed in his absence by his wife. About 7 o’clock on the evening of the 10th ult, the defendant came into the shop and asked him if he was Lamer. Witness replied in the negative, stating that his name was Rose. The defendant then accused him of being a correspondent of the “ Liberty".” Witness denied this, but admitted that he had been a contributor to that paper. The defendant then left, saying that ho would give witness the soundest horsewhipping ever he had in his life. In about half an hour he came back with a riding-whip and sttuclc 'witness several times with it, saying, “ 1 know that you are a cripple, but that will not save you.” Witness never wrote anything under the heading of “ Tittle Tattle ” in the “Liberty,” but had forwarded'some contributions in liiyune. Witness stated that he was one of the Dunedin agents for the “ Liberty" ” newspaper. There were three other agents in Dunedin besides. To Mr Mac Dermot have no shares in the “ Liberty,” nor have I any" interest in it. I was employed by" the proprietor to circulate almanacks. I was also employed to canvas for the paper. I was not in the habit of contributing from Dunedin. Mr Mac Dermot have you never contributed to the column headed “Tittle Tattle ” ? Witness—l doeline to answer that question. After a short delay witness answered in the affirmative. Mr MacDermott (producing a copy 7 of the “ Liberty ”)—Has the article marked in this column been written by you? Witness hesitated, whereupon Mr MacDermott asked if he was afraid of another horsewhipping. Witness—l am not afraid of y r ou, anyhow. Cross-examination continued—There arc a dozen writers in Dunedin for the “ Liberty,” hut none of their correspondence goes through my hands. Bodily I was not hurt by the defendant, but my feelings were hurt. I do not contribute to this paper now, but I intend to do so, and will so long as it is a legalised paper. This being the plaintiff’s case, Mr MacDermott proceeded to address the Bench. He admitted that the defendant had taken the law into his own hands, but much graver offences were often committed and excused by the law. It was a disgrace to civilisation to allow such a publication as the “ Liberty” —a paper in which such scurrilous articles appeared about ladies and gentlemen of the highest respectability —to exist. And yet the law provided no redress for such a grievance. As the law did not provide redress, the only other course was a judicious application of the horsewhip to those who had to do with the matter. Such a writer as this could, by watching persons and writing about them in such a stylo, make their lives practicably’ intolerable. He contended that the action taken by the complainant should be taken into consideration, and the punishment mitigated accordingly. For the defence, Peter ©aims was called, and deposed that the complainant had told him that lie was not physically injured, but was grossly insulted.

Edwin Marlow deposed that in con sequence of a paragraph that appeared in the -Liberty reflecting on his character, and which he believed to be written by the complainant, he wont to Mr Earner’s shop in George street and horsewhipped the complainant. The complainant told him that he was connected with the “ Liberty,” and had lost £3O by it. After retiring for a few minutes, the Bench stated that there was no doubt that the assault had been committed, but they bad to take into consideration the circumstances under which it had been committed. It was evident that society was determined not to tolerate papeis of the character of the “ Liberty.” Still it would not do for them to take the law into their own hands, for society might come to such a state of disorganisation as was the case in America, and the matter might end in bloodshed. iNo doubt such publications should be put down, not in this manner, however, but by the arm of the law. The defendant would be fined 20s and costs.