A PRIEST IN THE POLICE COURT.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 1945, 30 March 1875, Page 3

A PRIEST IN THE POLICE COURT.

At the Emerald-lull Police Court on Saturday, Frank Henwood, a young man about 18, son of a master stevedore at Sandridge, summoned the ~Rev. Timothy O'Callaghan, Catholic priest, for assault, alleged to hare been committed on the 14th ult.. The magistrates were—Messrs. Danks (the mayor), Foote, Uimmo, Mouat 9 and WMteman, J.P's. The defendant had no lawyer. Mr Kead said that if the defendant would apologise he would recommend his client to withdraw the information, but the defendant did not accept the offer. The evidence of the complainant was to the effect that on Sunday evening, the 14th ult., he took a young woman into the Catholic Chapel at Emerald-hill. He was not a Catholic, and went, out of curiosity, to see the service at vespers. The young woman went into the body of the church, and he took a seat further back. There was a little boy- standing up, and Father O'Callaghan, who was not engaged in the service, entered the church, and putting his hand upon the boy's shoulder pushed him down into a kneeling position and slapped him. - The complainant, Henwood, was sitting down leaning forward with his head on his hands, and the priest took hold of him and struck him several blows on the back- Henwood got up to go out, made for a closed door, and then finding his mistake, went out at the open door, and was followed by the priest, who struck him on the back of the head with a cane, causing blood to flow upon his coat and Ms handkerchief, which he used to stop the bleeding. Henwood went to his father and told him of the occurrence.

In reply t) the defendant, the witness said lie did npt put out his foot to trip any young girls. Mr. Henwood, master stevedore, stated that^om what his son told him he saw Patfier O'Callaghan at his house, and asked him to explain his conduct, whereupon the priest said he would have served him the same. Henwood said he would have nothing to do with him, as it was Sunday night, and that he would take the matter into Court.

A young man named Eix stated that he was passing the chapel, and stopped to listen to the music, and that he saw young Henwood come out of the chapel, followed by Father O'Callaghan, who struck Henwood. He was not acquainted with Henwood.

The defendant, in cross-examining this witness, asked him whether he did not think it his (defendant's) duty to interfere if a lot of blackguards like the witness went into the church and disturbed the service.

Mr Bead objected to a respectable young man like the witness being called "a young blackguard "—and on the Bench commenting adversely, the defendant withdrew the expression. Mr Eead said that he had done all he could to prevent the case coming into court and causing a scandal. He had leen Father England, who had recommended him to visit the archbishop. He had called at the archbishop's palace and hatded his card to the servant, who,upon reading his name, threw the card at him, said that they were at dinner, and that he would not deliver the card. If; was his endeavors to effect a settlement that had. delayed the taking out of the summons. The defendant stated that a great deal of trouble was given by the conduct of the'larrikins about the church. On the present occasion he merely pushed a boy to make him kneel down at the exposition

of the host, which was the most solemn part of the service, in the estimation of Catholics, who believed that God was actually present on the altar. The boy went over as if for protection to young Henwood, who hacl been making signs to the boy, The boj then put '»is thumb to his nose and extended his fingers at him (defendant), in the way used by boys as a sign of derision. He (defendant) then went to make Henwood kneel down, and might have struck him in his annoyance, but he asked their worships whether the cane which he produced was likely to draw blood.

The magistrates after retiring to consider, unanimously fined the defendant £5, with £3 3s costs, or a month's imprisonment. The defendant asked when the imprisonment would take effect, and was told immediately. He said he would go to gaol, but in a short time the fine was paid and he leit the court. —Australasian, March 6. ■