RESIDENT MAGISTATE'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume 1, Issue 140, 11 January 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTATE'S COURT.

Eriday, January 10. (Before J. Giles, Esq., M.D., E.M.) ASSAULTING A BARRISTER. The person who passes by the name of Mrs Haynes was again brought up yesterday morning to answer the charge of having struck Mr Tyler, and used abusive and threatening ianguage towards him, for which she was bound over to keep the peace on "Wednesday last. She was defended by Mr Campbell. Mr Pitt appeared for the plaintiff, and in opening the case said that he would detain the Court with very few observations, as all the facts of the case came out on the previous hearing, but he thought it duo to his client to notice certain unfair comments which had been made out-of-doors on this case, in which it was sought to establish an analogy between it and another case that had been the subject of a good deal of public conversation. He himself could see no analogy whatever between the two cases. His client had found it necessary for the interest of a client of his own to make some comments on the position of the defendant, with reference to Mr Haynes, who had been the plaintiff in a suit in which Mr Tyler had been engaged. The defendant had chosen to resent this by an assault of the most

aggravated character, which she had threatened on more than one occasion to repeat. This was a gross breach of the privileges of counsel, which would be highly dangerous to a barrister's position, if permitted to pass unpunished or unchecked. It was laid down by some of the best authorities, that if any evil arise from the freedom of speech employed by counsel, it must be endured, for the sake of the superior good the client thereby receives. Counsel cannot be questioned on account of the strength of any observations they may find it their duty to make in their conduct of a case. It was, therefore, necessary to sternly repress any tendency of parties who might fancy themselves aggrieved by any thing said by a barrister in court to revenge themselves in the way this defendant had done. There were, however, cases of a different character, of which this could not be said. Far be it from him to support acts of violence. But it was found that in case of slander, personal chastisement was much more efficient than the tardy remedy of the law—although it was decidedly wrong. In the case now before the Court he trusted that the heaviest possible punishment would be inflicted as a small pecuniary fine would have no effect on the defendant. She would consider it rather a triumph than otherwise. It was better that all persons should know that Counsel cannot be interfered with for any thing they may do in pursuance of their duty in Court. Edward King Tyler gave evidence to precisely the same effect as at the previous hearing. He added that when the defendant had ceased to strike him, she said, " Do you want to strike me ? you can strike me if you like." He replied, " I don't want to interfere with you." Witness said the case assumed an importance in consequence of the circumstances attending it, that it would not otherwise possess. He only wanted to be protected in his duty as an advocate.

Cross-examined by Mr Campbell— He said he first knew of defendant's cohabitation with Mr Haynes in a case where she and Hayne"s charged a woman with larceny. He again mentioned it in a case where Haynes sued for debt a person whom he (witness) defended.

Mr Campbell, in addressing the Court, said that although barristers were entitled to certa li privileges, yet his client had received quite sufficient exasperat;on to make her take the course she had pursued. The complainant had repeated the same observations on three different occasions, and in the last case the defendant had nothing whatever to do with the matter. A barrister, although protected in the freedom of his speech, was not allowed to make observations that were not of importance to the case. The complainant had brought the punishment on himself, and he (Mr Campbell) thought a small fine would meet the justice of the case. The Court, in giving judgment, said that there did not appear to be any reason why an adjournment should have been applied fcr on the previous occasion, as no new evidence had been adduced, and there did not appear any reason why the case could not as well have been decided then as now. "With regard to the observations of plaintiff's counsel, they were quite uncalled for, as the Court could certainly take no notice of any remarks that might be made out of doors on a matter that afterwards came under its cognizance, but was not before it. The case which was before it would be judged on its own merits solely. The defence here set up was that the remarks of counsel having given offence, that was a sufficient justification. But it was evident from the defendant's own statement that she was not married to Haynes, and that took all force out of the plea of justification. If she came into a witness-box and swore she was his wife, she would subject herself to the charge either of bigamy or perjury. Her counsel contended that the plaintiff in his pleadings went out of the record; but he stated that this was simply to disparage the evidence given by Mr Haynes. counsel had not exceeded his legitimate privileges. This was not a question of the severity of the assault. It was evidently not the fault of the defendant that it was not as severe as she could make it. The gist of the case was in the matter whether it was severe or not; but it was certain that most serious consequences would ensue if assaults of this kind were tolerated, as it would tend to destroy the confidence of clients themselves in retaining counsel for fear they should be intimidated from doing their utmost in their cause. This was a case fo the infliction of the highest penalty the Act of Parliament would permit. The -

sentence would therefore be a fine of £lO, including costs, or one month's imprisonment. The prisoner paid the money with an air of bravado, which seemed to imply that she would very much like to repeat the offence at the same price. civil causes, watteb's wages. Francis Le Grand summoned Messrs Parer and Arenas, of the Spanish Eestaurant for a balance of wages as waiter. He had come out from Melbourne with Arenas, under the promise that as soon as he commenced any business he would employ him. On the 11th July, Arenas, in conjunction with Parer, had bought a section of land and commenced to put up a building. Plaintiff remained there assisting as well as he could till the restaurant opened—seven weeks after. He had been paid £2 a week from this time, but noAv claimed for the time he had been employed on the building. Mr Tyler for the defence showed that the plaintiff had been kept by the defendant in food, lodging, washing and tobacco, and had been paid for his services during the time he was actually employed. Judgment was given for the defendants, with costs.