RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3892, 20 June 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY; (Before H. Kenrick, Esq., 8,M.) Martin Glen was charged with drunkenness, and fined 5s or 24 hours' imprisonment. A FBIVOLOUS CHARGE. Win- McCullough was charged on the complaint of Henry Elates Campbell with publishing « paragraph in, the Evkhing Stab in which he was called a. " hematite Laired maujof law,'"and which was calculated tofcauwTa breach' of the peace. Mr Brassey appeared for defendant and pleadrd not guilty. ft i Mr Brassey objected ; to .the complaint] as introducing language not contemplated , by the section' of the Justices of the Peace Act, under'which the complaint was laid, viz , that the article ,was written for the purpose of ridicule. • tiis Worskip: ftrtid it w*s clearly surplusage, but the cane had better proceed. Mr Campbell said he had requested Mr McCullough to apologise for his conduct in calling him *, lpeniatite haired man of lan, in the issue of the Evening Stab of the 6tfc Jftyte instant, as the least ; that one man, expects of another. He ; (the complainant) /iiad met Mr McCullough at the Btfflf'pf New South Wales corner the day .attar the article complained of appeared. Mr;McCullough expressed his regret at the Article having appeared, if it gave hink'Modyance, and naid that if he had seen it-betore it appeared, it should not have be^A inserted. He (the complainant) admiite'(f rhe made use of some very strong language (not at all polite) to Mr McCuliougbJ biit declined to say what that language was.',Mr jVJcCullough did not retort nor, use any language, but turned away. He considered the, article of the 7th did not make any amend for the insult, as it referred only to the case, aot to what he compluiued of. After the complaint was laid, he again met Mr McCullongh, and told him what he bad done, and he (Mr McCullotigh) said that he was sorry < that he had taken such a step, as he considered it 4 unnecessary. [ lie (the complainant) was a man of very irritable temper,' and would not under- j take to say what he would do if the language complained of appeared again. He asked to be svrorn. I

The oomplaiuant was then sworn, and deposed to the statement made by him in the opening of his case. Mr Brassey at this stage asked the Court if any case had been made out. Cross examined, by Mr Brassey—He admitted having taunted Mr McCullough at the Bank of New South Wales corner, and told him.to lay an information against him for the language he had used. Mr Brassey—Then it was Mr McCullough that had the most cause to commit a breach of the peace. Did Mr Campbell think Mr McCullough would do so ? Mr Campbell —JSo; Mr McOullough and he had always been good friends. What he complained of was being called a " hematite haired man of law." He did not complain of the latter part of the article, referring to the " pretty baby." He told Mr McCulloanh that he would take similar proceedings against him to those taken against Mr Wickham. He was of a very irritable temper when annoyed, ,'but was not in the ha-bit of falling out with people. He refused to say whether he was in the habit of quarrelling with people, particularly the Clerk of the Court, Mr Allom. Mr Allom—Mr Brassey, please leave me out of this matter. I can take care of myself. -..-•■ ,: . He (Mr Campbell) would not undertake to say what he would do if he was irritated by Mr McCullough. He was always on friendly terms with Mr McCullough, and was »o still. He could not say that the conduct complained of has been or that it was likely to be

repeated. His Worship -said that Mr Campbell must proye two thiugs. Ist. That the language is such as to provoke a breach ot the peace, and secondly that such conduct was likely to be repeated. Upon tUe

complainant's own showing there was not a tittle of evidence to warrant him in saying that such proof had been given, indeed there was no proof of Mr McCullough having been in any way connected with the article in question. The language he could not say was such as was calculated p cause a breach of the peace, nor was there anything in the paragraphs subsequently inserted to show that Mr McCullough had any intention to give tiie complainant further offence. He must dismiss the case, even without calling upon the defendant to 'giW'IMJT" 1 evidence. . '