ALLEGED PROVOCATION.

Taranaki Daily News, 28 June 1918, Page 7

ALLEGED PROVOCATION.

CHARGE DISMISSED. | At the New Plymouth Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr. A. Crooke, S.M., Mary Crann proceeded against her husband, Henry * Crann, on a charge ol using provoking and insulting language to her in Devon street, on June 8, whereby a breach of the peace might have been occasioned. Sub-Inspector Hutton represented the police, and Mr. R, 0. Hughes appeared for defendant. Constable Wroblenski said he was on duty'at the railway station on the evening of June 8. He saw Mrs Crann and defendant there, the latter being under the influence of liquor. Mrs Crann got some papers, and then left the platform. He saw Crann go off the station, aid shortly after, when Mrs Crann compiained to him that her husband had insulted her. Crann had gone up Egmont street, and witness overtook him. under the verandah ; of the Coffee Palace. Mrs Crann was coming along with a friend, but stopped to sell some papers, and her companion' went on. Witness heard defendant say something ;to his' wife. Mrs Crann then proceed* ed into Devon street and went into a shop, and defendant waited at the door till she came out, when he used the words complained of. There were a number of people about at the time.i and trouble might have resulted. Mrs Crann again complained to witness, and he said he would report the matter, He yaew defendant well, and had had to ;warn him on several occasions about Ma behaviour. His chief occupation was that of a "beer drinker." Defendant Had been bound over to keep the peace for twelve months in January Mst.

In ijeply to a question by the Magis. Hfate, it was stated that no record could be found that defendant had ever entered into a bond to keep the peace. Witness wa3 cross-examined by Mr. Hughes, who questioned his remark about defendant's occupation being that of a "beer-drinker," suggesting that was a habit m'her than an occupation. "Yes, a ""'A but a veTy bad one for him," replied fie witness.

Continuing, witness said defendant was a laborer employed by the Borough Council.

Mary Crann, tie complainant, said she had been separated from defendant for twelve months,, the arrangement having been made by mutual consent. She had complained of defendants filthy and indecent language to her in January, and he had been bound over to keep the peace. Witness then related the circumstances of the night of June 8, as given by the previous witness. She proceeded to say that if she came into town in the afternoon and defendant saw her he would point her out to those he was working with and insult her before them. Defendant: It's a lie!

To Mr. Hughes:, She had never had a comfortable day's life since marrying defendant, because of his drinking habits and his filthy language. She had seven children, and but for them she would have left defendant long ago. She believed he had been employed by the Council for about IB years. When the separation was agreed upon defendant left her with the house and the furniture ("Such as it was," remarked the witness). She had three sons at the war. She did not live on the allotments of pay they left. That was their money, and was kept in the bank for them. She had maintained herself for the last 10 years by going out washing. Defendant: It's a lie! .Mr. Hughes: Has not your husband complained of your unfaithfulness? — Witness: No! And he's had no cause to. Continuing, witness said she had i never told him she would do as she liked. She had never been aDle to do as she liked. She was not in the habit of having men come to her home. One of her sons had been killed at the front. Mr. Hughes stated that he had been advised that that son had said that but for the carryings on at home he would not have volunteered, to which witness replied indignantly that the boy had been working away down the line for some time, and enlisted without her knowledge. To Sub-Inspector Hutton: The only money she got from defendant was 5s per week which he agreed to pay towards the maintenance of her little boy. . Mr. Hughes was proceeding to state his case with a view to calling the defendant, when the Magistrate intimated • that he did not think it necessary as there had been no proof that there' had been anything approaching a breach, of the-peace. Ho said application should hay* been made to have defendant bound over to keep the peace. The information was therefore dismissed. The Sub-Inspector asked to have tho Icharge amended to that of using indecent language, but the Magistrate held that even such 'a charge could not bo sustained on the evidence.