DISPUTED BOARD BILL.

Taranaki Daily News, 8 June 1917, Page 2

DISPUTED BOARD BILL.

[ SOUK LIVELY LETTERS, f At the Magistrate's Court, New PlyI mouth, yesterday, before Mr. A. Cruokc, o-Al., a case was ] le ard in which Harry I'.va, horse trainer, sought to have Eva Meads, a waitress, bound over to keep thepeace, on the ground that he hail .lust cause to fear that she would'do his wife bodily harm. Mr. 1! B Fitz-I'c-rbcrt appeared for the complainant, and Mr. A. 11. Johnstone for the defendant, i

Mr. Fitzhcrbert said that some little time ago Miss Meads was living at Mr. and Mrs. Eva's house as a boarder, and after she left Mrs. Eva sued her for board, claimed to be due, but was nonsuited. Since then on several occasions defendant had used very objectionable language- to Mrs. Eva, and had also written' her two letters. The letters had not been stamped, but Mrs. Eva not knowing what they were, had accepted them and paid' the postage. The first letter was received by Mrs. Eva in Deromber of last year, and was as follows"To Mrs. Eva (The Liar). I am just sending you these few lines to give y«u a warning. I knew quite well- you were afraid of me, and also you could not get any more witnesses for your socalled board case, and I can assure you if ever you did go on with this I will out your throat. A dirty common low thing like you to think vou will make me pay board. P.S.—We have made up our minds to give vou a h of a time every time we see vou I heard you were ill; it's a —\- pity you did not : 4ie.—Your so-called boarder Eva Meads."

The second letter, dated in May, 1916, v.'"* as follows: "To old Mother Eva! As I have nothing to do I am writing this letter to you, you rotter. Don't think 1 am afraid 6i you or the police, because lam not. I think this is lovelv fun, writing these letters. I only laughed at the old sergeant when he read that other letter to me. Doric, Leo, and I think this is the greatest fun we have ever had. You are, we all know, a dirty, common, low, rotten thing. Please don't laugh so loud about Leo getting drawn in the ballot, as I intend to buy him out if he is drawn. You rotten •.thing, I wish every day you were dead, out of my way. I hate you, and have hated you ever since 1 first saw you. I'll cu t your throat one of these days; I am just waiting my turn for you. T.S.—Heard you were nearly starving; it is a pity rubbish like you did not starve out of the way. I intend keeping on sending as long as 1 am in New Plymouth. I remain, votir boarder, Eva Meads."

Mr. Johnstone said the defendant denied having written the letters' or knowing anything about tlifln. He had not been aware that such letters would ho put in evidence, although on the previous afternoon Mr. Fitzherbert hud said something about letters, but he (Mr. Johnstone) 'had understood they were anonymous. Under the' circumstances ho might have to ask for an adjournment to call rebutting evidence. Bis Worship asid that strictly speaknig the information shojild have set-out in full the reasons for fearing bodily harm, so that the defendant would know what she had to answer. As it was the Complaint merely alleged that Mrs. Eva had just cause to fear bodily Imnn, without giving any grounds for that fear.

Mr. Fitzherbert said lie would have the application amended if the Court thought it necessary, and then Mr. Johnstone would .have the right to an adjournment if he wished it.

Mr.Johnstone said lie would apply for an adjournment, with .costs, if it became necessary as the ease went on.

Hannah Eva, wife of Harry Eva, gave evidence to the effect that 'the defendant had lived with her last year. Witness had sued Miss Mead for board and lddging, but had been non-suited. Since then Miss Mead.had behaved towards her in a very nasty manner. On the racecourse defendant had accosted witness, and, after referring to the' dispute about board, had cursed and swore at her in an awful manner, adding: "For two pins I would smack you across the face!" On various subsequent occasions the defendant, on meeting witness in public places, had used offensive and insulting language. Witness was certain that the letters produced were in Miss Mead's handwriting. The effect of defendant's conduct on witness had been distressing and had caused great annoyance.

Cross-examined by Mr. Johnstone: The racecourse incident took place before the board ease came before the court. On one occasion defendant said, when she met witness on the public street: "Ain"t some people h li clever; they get their board money when they sue for it, don't they?" The only objection witness had had to defendant as a boarder was to a certain man coming about the house, "and that," said witness, "was what she got her face tied up in a knot about." Every time they met defendant had "thrown off" at witness, and when they did not meet for any length of time witness received nasty letters. She (witness) had never had any ill will against Miss Meads. Her only objection had been to tho man. To Mr. Fitzherbert: Witness was absolutely frightened of meeting the defendant at night.

Harry Eva, the complainant, and husband of the previous witness, stated that ho believed tho letters produced to bo in the handwriting of the defendant. Even had they not been signed witness would have believed them to bo in Miss Meade's writing. The letters had greatly annoyed both him and his wife. ■ Mr. Johnstone submitted that there was no evidence on which the defentant could be bound over to keep the peace. The letters alleged to contain threats were absurd, and were simply a mass of abuse.

His Worship said, the threat to cut Mrs. Eva's throat'was going a little far and might be taken as likely to induce a fear of bodily harm. Eva Meades was then called, and absolutely denied writing the letters produced or using insulting language to Mrs. Eva.

Mr. Fitzherbert: Who do you suggest wrote the letters?

Defendant: I suggest Mrs. Eva wrote (hem herself. I swear I knew nothing about those letters till I camo to the court to-day.

Continuing, in answer to Mr. Fitzherbert, defendant ,said she had noi) spoken to Mrs. Eva since the hearing of the ease about tho board.

To his Worship: Mrs. Eva's statement that at least on three occasions defendant had "thrown off" at her was a pure fabrication. Naturally she had no goodwill towards Mrs. Eva since the last case, but had not spoken to her, thinking it 'best to leave her alone.

His Worship said he did not put much reliance on the defendant's evidence, but at the same time he was not satisfied

that, although abusive and improper •language had been used, tbere was any cause to fear actual bodily harm. The letters contained threats to, cut Mrs. Eva's throat, but he did not think it likfcly that a person who had any intention of carrying out such an operation would state it in writing. It did not i seem to him that there <\vas any intention to carry the threat onfc or cause to fear bodily harm. The. case would be dismissed without costs.