RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 239, 7 May 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, Mat Ist, 1868 (Before C. Broad, Esq , R.M., and G. W. Lightband Esq. J. P.) Sain v. Dioan. —This was an information for using abuse and insulting language. A. B. Bain, sworn, said—On Friday I attended an auction near the Nile Bridge the auctioneer was the present defendant. After some delay defendant got up on a truck and said he was about to make a sale, and then made a long and abusive harangue. Somebody handed him a protest which he declined to receive. Defendant used abusive language to people present, and someone appeared to trip up the truck. Defendant abused a boy for doing so. All this took up so much time that I made an ejaculation of impatience. The defendant looking me in the face, asked who said "ah." I said I did, he asked me what right I had to' do it. I said I had a perfect right. He then commenced abusing me for five minutes right off without my making a remark He said it was a low mean trick of me to come there, he also said that I prostituted my pen to my own purposes. He wanted me to call him down to fight, I said I did not want to have any fisticuffs with him, but should take another remedy. He admitted

having insulted me, and the sale proceeded. After the sale I asked him if before coming down, he would apologise or retract his insulting expressions he said no, and I walked away. He showered abuse after me as long aa I could hear him.

Being cross-examined by Mr O'Neill who was retained for the defence— Complainant said he considered the language used by defendant calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, and would swear that the exclamation uttered was not intended to throw defendant out of his sale.

Mr.Pocock stated he was present at the sale on Friday, and heard the defendant abuse Mr Bain. Was standing next complainant when he made a slight noise, but the exclamation was in so low a tone that he was surprised Mr Dwan heard it. The latter asked who said, " Ah," and said whoever did it he would kick him into the river. Mr Bain said he made the remark. Defendant challenged him in a certain way, and said something about running. Heard plaintiff remark he would not go into fisticuffs. The language of defendant to plaintiff was generally abusive, and lasted from five to ten minutes. The plaintiff made no remark until spoken to by defendant. Heard the latter say that plaintiff had prostituted his pen to serve his own purpose. Cross-examined—Believed that the language complained of was calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. Saw Mr Nees upset the truck. Doubted whether he should have been able to command his temper nnder the same circumstances as Mr Bain did. D. G-. Macdonnell was present at the sale, and confirmed the previous evidence. Defendant also referred to Mr Bain as a butterfly auctioneer, and said he would sell him out of the district, and used other other insulting expressions. Did not hear Mr Bain abuse the defendant in any way. Heard him ask the defendant after the sale to apologise. Defendant said he would if Mr Bain apologised to him, but not otherwise. In cross-examination, witness said he certainly thought the language used by defendant calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. Mr Stebbing was called, and gave evidence similar to that of the last two witnesses, and which was unshaken in cross-examination. For the defence, Mr Home, junior, was called, and said he heard complainant say "Haw," and defendant remonstrate about his interrupting the sale. He heard defendant call complainant a bush reporter, and say he could buy up both him and his paper. Cross-examined by Mr Bain—Did not hear yon make any insulting remark to defendant.

Francis Carroll stated he was present at the sale. There were about fifty present, and there was a good deal of excitement. Defendant begged of them to he quiet. He saw the truck tipped up and defendant fall. Complainant was there and much excited. A good many remarks passed on both sides. He thought complainant endeavored to groan the affair down. Did not hear defendant offer to fight him, but saw complainant step up near to where defendant was standing, and he expected to see blows struck.

Cross-examined by Mr Bain—Will swear I saw you take two or three steps forward. Cannot tell particularly what remarks you made.

G. Pound said he was present on the occasion when complainant began to jeer the defendant. Latter told him not to do so again. Complainant said he would. After that the truck was upset and a protest was handed in, and afterwards complainant and defendant had some words. Heard complainant say out ha ! ha! ha! three times and groan. Mr Philip Eooney said he thought it was all chaff, and arose from defendant saying that complainant " ah'd" him. Mr Speers's evidence was of similar character.

Mr O'Neill, after referring to the trivial character of the complaint said he thought the complainant had made a mistake, and the information must fall through. The proper course would have been to institute an action for slander.

Mr Bain.in reply said, it was monstrous to suppose that because an auctioneer held a license he was privileged to shower unlimited abuse on any one attending his sales. He contended that, if as his learned friend hinted, there was sufficient cause for an action for slander, the language must surely have been such as would be provocative of a breach of the peace. The Magistrate said he was glad that his brother Justice agreed with him in the matter. There had evidently been provocation in both sides, and he should dismiss the information. JSFees v. Dwan —This was an information similar to the last, and it was

proved that the defendant called plaintiff a thief and a liar, but on the other hand plaintiff admitted having retaliated by afterwards calling the defendant a b- liar. Defendant was fined one shilling and costs. Stebbing v. Dwan— This case was like the two previous ones in character. Ihe evidence of complainant, confirmed by witnesses, was to the effect that at the sale he handed in a written protest to the defendant, who would not listen to it or receive it, but kicked it away, saying he would kick him and his b protest to hell. He also used other offensive expressions. For the defence, Mr Carroll was called, and said he did not hear these E articular expressions used, but he eard a good many remarks pass between them. Defendant was fined forty shillings and costs. Three informations laid by Thomas Dwan against A. B. Bain, C. Nees, and Harry Stebbing, for interfering with the sale, were, at the suggestion of the Magistrate, withdrawn. Bucklandv. Wldtly.— Claim, £l6 3s, for goods supplied. Judgment for plaintiff. Pizzey and Co. v. Godfrey. —Claim, £99 15s. Judgment for plaintiffs by default, and immediate execution granted. An application by Patrick Brody for a renewal of his license was granted, A similar application from J. Johnston was objected to by Mr Philip Allen, on the ground that applicant's tenancy of the house expired that day, and he (Mr Allen) did not intend to re-let the premises to him. Application refused.