CURIOUS SQUABBLE BETWEEN TRAMPS AND THIEVES.—A PICNIC PARTY ATTACKED BY HOODLUMS.

Waipawa Mail, Volume I, Issue 11, 19 October 1878, Page 2 (Supplement)

CURIOUS SQUABBLE BETWEEN TRAMPS AND THIEVES.—A PICNIC PARTY ATTACKED BY HOODLUMS.

An American paper says : — 44 A squad of 400 tramps, having no particular object in view save that of living without work, entered a train at Rock Island, on the Chicago Railroad. They were not alone, for in the same carriage there chanced to be a select party of 44 thugs and thieves,” who immediately began to amuse themselves by»attempting to rob the tramps. It might have been imagined that to attempt to steal from a vagrant was not a very hopeful business, but the 44 thugs” had means of persuasion at hand in the form of razors, which they used with such effect that at last the blood of the tramps was roused, and we learn that they finally 44 put on the brakes in self-dt.fence - ” It is to be presumed that there were other passengers in the train besides these two sets ; but no one appears to have given them a thought. According to American views, the most natural thing in the world for the tramps to do was to stop the train, put a guard over the engine-driver, and pursue the thieves, who by this time had left the cars and taken refuge in a comffeld. 44 A most exciting chase,” we are told ensued ; the thieves were overtaken, one was shot dead by a tramp, another was 44 blazed at” by a farmer, who, by means of a large gun which he chanced to have in his possession, 44 crushed the head of the thief,” and the remainder were so 44 frightfully pounded ” that two of them have since died. After this the tramps resumed their journey, and it is to be hoped reached their destination without further trouble.

Less provoked was the assault committed near San Francisco by a gang of seventy-five 44 hoodlums ” upon a picnic party. The picnickers were perfectly harmless ; they gave no offence ; their simple desire was to consume refreshments and enjoy a dance. The 44 hoodlums,” however, determined to rob them, and would have succeeded had not a party

of police come upon the spot at the very nick of time and decided the question to whom the eatables belonged. They began in a very demonstrative fashion ; an officer shot the leader of the “ hoodlums” through the head, a good round fight ensued, and in the end the thieves betook themselves to flight. Thus the majesty o! the law was vindicated. Both these events occurred on a Sunday. BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE. Gee v. Entwhistle. At the Liverpool Assizes, recently, Ellen Gee, the daughter of a potato dealer, sought to recover damages for an alleged breach of promise of marriage. On behalf of the plaintiff it was slated that the defendant had behaved in the most heartless manner. The engagement took place in 1874, the defendant being received at plaintiff’s father’s house as her future husband. The marriage was fixed to come off on the plaintiff attaining twenty-one, which would be in October, 187(5. All went well during the first eighteen months of the engagement, but in June, 1870, a coolness sprang up in consequence of something said by the defendant’s brother in disparagement of the plaintiff. It appeared that one day when the plaintiff and defendant were walking together in Ihe park at Preston they met the defendant’s brother John, who said, “ I would not have a woman with lumps on her feet,” to which the plaintiff replied, “Well, Johnny, you will be very thankful if you get any, either with or without.” Plaintiff told defendant he ought to speak to his brother, but he took no notice of what she said. On parting company with him that night she bid him good-bye,” expectto see him on the Monday ; but ‘‘ no Joseph came.” She went to the house of his parents a short time after, but was not allowed to see him, and subsequently he married a Miss Bowden, a friend of the plaintiff. • In answer to Mr. Russell, defendant’s solicitor, the plaintiff said that she never told the defendant he had better keep company with Miss Bowden if he liked.

About the time of the visit to Preston, a Yorkshire farmer, who owned a dozen houses and about a hundred cows, stayed two or three days at her father’s house ; but the defendant had no reason to be jealous of the Yorksliireman and she was not smitten with him.

Mr. Russell : But he was jealous of this rich, fine-looking Yorkshireman. Witness : He was not a good-looking Yorkshireman. He was an old bachelor, about forty or fifty years old. James Gee, the plaintifl’s father gave corroborative evidence as to the engagement, and said the Yorkshireman was sixty-five years of age.

In answer to Mr. Russell, this witness excused his dilatory proceedings in commencing this action by saying, 44 1 thought the breach wsis a freak of nature on the part of the defendant, and that in course of time, being a young man, he would regret it.”

His Lordship : It was not a freak of nature after he married the other lady. Witness : No, your lordship. The jury ultimately returned a verdict for the plaintiff'—damages, £75.