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

(Befere M. Piice, Esq., 11. M.) Wedxesdat, 3rd Juxe. Drunk and Disorderly. —J- Cahill was charged by Constable .M'Lean with conducting himself so as to provoke a breach of the peace, on the 2nd .Tune. Fined 40s. James Lang, J. Stoddart, and W. Ellis were charged with being drunk and assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty on the morning of the tlrd June. Sergeant Purcell deposed that at half-past one o'clock on Wednesday morning, while on duty in Tay-street, be saw the three defendants staggering about an I making a great noise. Lang was not so drunk as the others, but pretended to be more so. They jostled against witness, and when told to go home, refnsed to -lo so. With the assistance of Constables Fisher and Canny, succeeded in taking the defendants to the lock-up. Lang was first taken, and the others tried to rescue him, and resisted violently. Constables Fisher and Canny confirmed this evidence. Constable Lind, who had charge of the lock-up, deposed that defendants were drunk. The Court thought that tlie charge had been clearly proved, even supposing that any blame could 1)3 imputed to the police, which could not be shown heie, as they had cautioned the defendants on the consequences of their conduct. There was a proper remedy in the courts of law ; nothing justified assaulting them while in the execution ot their duty. It appeared that Lang had boon loss violent than the others, and his fine would consequently be less. John Lang fined UN., Janus Stoddart and William Ellis each fined -I,)*. Assault—ln the case of as-anlt alleged against A. P. Puettelkow by Francis Moore, remanded from yesterday. Mr. Harvey appealed for defendant. Francis Moore deposed that he went into tho kitchen of the Provincial Hotel, to light his pipe, between the hours of twelve and two. On tho mistress ordering him out, plaintiff went to the door. Felt rather provoked, and said, " It is not a gulden kitchen," or something like that, hutmthing more uncivil than that. Wis there met by defendant, wlio knocked plaintiff down, and kicked him about the face. When he got out, he took up a stick iv tho excitement of tlie innnent, but only in self-defence, and threw it down immediately alter. Then went round to the front door, and said to defendant, " You have treated me very unjustly, without any provocation." On repeating this complaint next morning, defendant did not attempt, to deny it, but said he gave plaintiff no chance of retaliation. Sarah M-Ciinshy deposed that she was cook at the Provincial Hotel when the circumstances occurred. Heard the mistress order plaintiff out of the kitchen, lie made some unintelligible reply, and moved to the d.-.or. AA'as so busy in taking in the dinner, ifcc., that she could not say what occurred. DU not hear plaintiff make use of any abusive or uncivil expressions. Mary Doskins deposed that she was in the employ of defendant. Saw plaintiff come into the kitchen. He was ordered out. Then a seuffie ensued between him and defendant. Saw them both kicking at one another. Then plaintiff took up a stick, threw it down again, and afterwards went in at the front door. AVitncss was so busily employed at the time that she could not particularly see how it all occurred. The kitchen was not near the bar but was detached at the back of the premises' Mr Harvey contended, in defence, that defendant had used no more foice than was necessary to expel plaintiff from the kitchen on his refusal to go The Court stated that certainly every man had a legal light to order another off his premises, and if the order was not complied with, to use just sufficient force to accomplish the purpose. Hut in this case violence had been used more than sufficient. The plaintiff had no right to enter the kitchen, wliich wa*? set apart entirely for the use of the servants. But defendant was not justified in resorting at once to personal violence. Fined lOs. with costs. A. T. Clark, charged by Sergeant Purcell with being drunk last night (2nd June,) was fined -10s ; and for continuing to speak after being called to order, was to be detained 24 hours.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ST18630605.2.10.1

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Southland Times, Volume 2, Issue 60, 5 June 1863, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
711

Untitled Southland Times, Volume 2, Issue 60, 5 June 1863, Page 2

Untitled Southland Times, Volume 2, Issue 60, 5 June 1863, Page 2

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