RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, TE AROHA.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 448, 22 February 1890, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, TE AROHA.

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18th. (Before H. W. Nortlieroft, Esq., R.M.) Abusive Language : McLjyvifct v. Mackic. lu this case Frauk McDevitt

charged Robert Mackie with the following offence, viz., that he did on the Bth January last, at Te Aroha, make U9e of abusive language by calling defendant and his wife d***** scoundrels, thieves, and d***** rogues, in the hearing of passers by, whereby a breach of the peace might have been caused. Mr W. Mehlrum, solicitor for plaintiff. Defendant pleaded Not Guilty. [The offence was alleged to have taken place on the same date, and about the same time as the row occurred betweon McDevitt and another of his neighbours named R, Michael, who McDevitt prosecuted for assault.] Mr Meldrum briefly stated the circumstances of the case. F. McDevitt (sworn), first gave evidence with respect to defendant using the language complained of, aad said he had no doubt whatever, the offensive terms were directed to him and his wife. By Defendant : There were other persons present at the time, amongst them, Jas. Clarke, R. Michael, anil others, when you called out to me. The reason I thought tho words were addressed to me was because you eften used very similar expressions to me before. I did receive money from your wife, for damages done to my garden. It was not by extortion I got it from her. I did not call your family d 0 * 0 * mongrels. The only reason I had foi' supposing thtf language was addressed to me was because you bad often done the like before. You were on Whitaker Street at the time. His Worship to Defendant : It is abusive language made use of in a public place constitutes the offence ; it would not have mattered if you had addressed it to a stone ; it would still be an offence when committed in a public place. James Clarke ( sworn) : Remembered the morning of January fcth la9t, and the row that took place that morning between plaintiff and Michael. Saw defendant at the time in a very excited position. He was calling McDevitt a rogue, a thief, and a bay stealer. He was using very abusive language. By Defendant : I think it was over Muisey’s bull, which had broken down a fence, you were excited. I believe you mentioned about Mrs McDevitt throwing stones. I did not see you cn Whitakerstreot.

Henry Kirby (sworn) : Stated he heard defendant using very bad language towards the plaintiff and his wife, calling them d thieves, rogues, and scoundrels. By Defendant : I saw the McDcvitt’s stone throwing. 1 remember saying with r.’spect to one of the stones thrown ‘“lf Bob Michael had caught that it would have settled him,” Both McDevitt and his wife threw stones. Charles Kirby (sworn) : Stated he saw defendant about the time of the row between McDevitt ami Michael, on the morning of January Bth. Defendant abased McDevitt and his wife. Heard Mackie call plaintiff ad scoundrel, a d liar, and d rogue. In reply to Defendant: You certainly did not say anything until Michael was assailed by stones. Ro' «.-t Mackie (sworn) : On the Bth of January I saw McDevitt and Michael fighting. Whilst this was going on Mis McDevitt came out and hit Michael with a stone ; after which both McDevitt and his wife took to stone throwing. When Kirby remarked if Michael had got that stone on the head it would have settled him, 1 said yes and made use of some derogatory remarks about McDevitt and his wife. I was not on Whitaker street at all at the time. I was in Stafford street, at the corner of my fence. Mury Michael (sworn) : In reply to His Worship, said she saw the row from beginning to end. Did not hear any bad language used by any one but Mrs McDevitt.

By Defendant: You did not interfere iu the fight as long as the two men had it to themselves, or until Mrs McDevitt commenced to thrown stones at Michael. These were the only witnesses calleJ. II is Worship : In the face of the evidence given by .the two Kirby’s, who have both swore positively that the language set out in the information wa9 made use of, and are both independent witnesses, I can only come to one conclusion, viz., that it was used. Fined £2 and £4 3s costs.