JOHN ROLL ARRAIGNED BEFORE THE EUROPEAN SESSIONS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1008, 23 September 1882, Page 3

JOHN ROLL ARRAIGNED BEFORE THE EUROPEAN SESSIONS.

The following clever sketch is '• extracted from the Echo : —“ John Bull was charged before the Bench with having committed a gross, assault on Mrs Egypt, at Alexandria, on June 11. The complainant, a respectable looking woman, who said that she was the mother of a large family of children, deposed that not very long ago her late husband, who was, unfortunately, a man of very extravagant habits fell into the company of a gang of advertising money-lenders. Knowing that he was a substantial householder, these loan-office keepers had persuaded him to take loans at a most extortionate rate of interest, ranging from IS‘to 2per cent. Only a portion of the sums borrowed was paid in cash, the remainder being paid in pictures, wines, jewellery, and other useless articles, Since the demise of her late husband she had made the most desperate efforts to keep up the instalments which were due to the loan office, and had even parted with the clothes of herself, and children in order to raise the necessary payments. The loan office people had put in the defendant and -others as brokers’ men. Her sons had guaranteed the payment of the instalments of the debt, but as they ’ had not at the same time paid the expenses of the men in possession, the defendant and those acting with him on May 11th proceeded to make a wanton attack upon her property, which had brought her to the very verge of ruin. She had resisted as well as she was able, but the defendant had committed a o uel assault upon her in consequence, the signs of which were manifest to all who were present in Court. The defendant, a strong powerful man, stated that he was only acting in obedience to orders, i te was wholly unacquainted with the circumstances under which the debt was incurred, and when the loan office people, who were connected with him

by tus i ;.• 1 .tllousliip, employed him to interfere, he had been careful to confront to the str.ct letter .if t! e law. tie was sincerely snrry for Mrs Egypt, whose late husband had led her into such trouble by ids reckless and extravagant conduct, but he submitted that the legal claim of the people upon whose behalf he acted was indisputable. One of the magistrates here asked whether the defendant disputed the plaintiff’s statement that the moneys had been lent at .from IB to 26w per cent interest. Defendant replied that very likely it was true, but ho had nothing to do with that. The plaintiff had threatened his men, and was about, indeed, to turn them out of the houseThe assault occurred through his attempting to disarm her, and prevent her doing any mischief. Ho denied that he had used more violence than was necessary under the circumstances. The Bench said that there coulJ be no doubt that the poor woman had been most cruelly treated by the rascally usurers, who tempted her husband to Jiis destruction. There could bo no moral justification for the defendant’s conduct, though he might have a legal defence. The defendant would be remanded in order to give him an opportunity to produce the powers under which he acted, whose validity would be examined by the Court. He deeply .sympathised with the plaintiff. Through no fault of her own she had been victimised by an artful set of schemers, who had run up against her exorbitant c’aims, the greater part of which wore fictitious.”