THE TE A WAMUTU INSULTING LANGUAGE CASE.

Waikato Times, Volume XVIII, Issue 1506, 28 February 1882, Page 3

THE TE A WAMUTU INSULTING LANGUAGE CASE.

At the Te Awamutu I'olice Covut, on Friday 24th inst., before Messrs Toloand Andrew Kay. William Joluib was charged on an indictment \\ ith eoininittiug a bieach of the Vagrant Act by using insulting and tin cateiiing language towards one William bloane in a public ' place, on Saturday, the 18th inst. The defendant pleaded not guilty. — Mr Gresham for the complainant said these proceedings were brought under the Vagrant Act and its amendment, and it would be s>hown in evidence that the defendant, Mr John.->, not only committed the oflences recited m the indictment, but that he also nearly knocked his shoulder into the complainant's face. — William Sloane, in evidence, deposed that he was the chairman of the Rangiaohia Road Board. At a public meeting hsld lately in Te Awamutu, respecting timber leserves, at which he was present, Mr Johns offered to make him a bet of £10 on some matter relating to such reserves, and that after having done so, he, Mr Johns, called him a vindictive drunken liar, and that as he repeated the bet over and over again, he, witness, told him to give the £10 to .Hannaford, When the meeting was over he was told that a person wanted to we him at the Commercial. He hatl no sooner got there than Mr Johns came in aftev him, followed closely by Mr Walton. Johns came up to him and said " you are a drunken blackguard. I will {{ive you the greatest hiding you ever lad. I will have to skelp you, &c." Johns was in a toweling passion, and he lifted his hand as if to strike him. Mr Walton also at the same time made use of insulting language. Iv reply to some questions witness said : I made a mistake about Hannaford, it was Mrs Henry that Mr Johns dealt with. — Mr Johns : Did my dealing with Mrs Hqnry^fect you in any way ? Mr. Sloaue : taWfciu,the least.— By the Court: , Who mfafi ,vup of the first insult ? — Mr Sloane :* My Johns did, but he did not , retract until the people in the hall called, "put him out." — Mr John H. Mandeno deposed that Mr John's language . t the meeting was not complimentary, one phrase of his he thought was rather / strong in reference to Mr Sloane; it was, , that he was "a vindictive drunken yfellow." It struck him the words were P not well chosen. Mr Johus said that he •" ■ did not understand what Mr Sloane ,-meant in reference to Hannaford. He did not withdraw the insult to Sloaue Ujjtp called upoa to do cc—Mi' Benjy

Moncrieff deposed that Mr Johns made use of language to Mr Sloane at the meeting that was not complimentary. Could not say whether it was a "drunken liar," a "drunken blackguard" or "a drunken scoundrel'" he called him. Was sure ifc was a " drunken " something. Mr Johns seemed desirous to make a bet of £10. I think Mr Sloane said " Give the cheque to Hannaford." But it was not till after he had abused him that Sloane told him to give the money to Hanriaford. Did not think the allusion to Hannaford meant anything, and concerning the leserves Mr Sloane spoku correctly. He was justified in speaking as he did, because Mr Johns sold a portion of its timber to a saw-mill company —Mr Johns : I deny it— Mr Jonn W. Bridgm.iu, storekeeper, deposed that lie was present at the meeting when Mr Johns, called Mr Sloane a " vindictive lying follow." Thought Mr Sloane's remarks relative to Uaninifoid came first, but was not quite sure. Was quite certain Sfroane said nothing to Johns except about Hannaford — Mr Urosham : Do you attach any impoitance to his rcm.uk regarding Hannaford ?— Well, with the knowledge he had of Hannaford he would say there was. (loud laughter in court, and a ciy of " well done", which Mas suppressed by Constable Cfillies). He knew a pai ty in Auckland whom he got a wife for — MrGresham : well is there any hai'in in that — Witness -. I should consider such a remark addressed to me as a peisonal insult. Knowing as he did that Mr Haunaford negotiated about w ives he would take it as an insult if the icinark applied to him. — Mr Gresham : Do you attach any insult to the name of Hannaford? — Mr Bridginan: Well I know a party in Auckland whom he procured a partner for. — Mr Gresliam : What .' A partner ? Take care you do not criminate yourself. — The Bench : Yes, but ;you might lead him to it by pressing the question ho. — Mr Gresliam : I will ask Mr Bridginan if he knows that Mr Hannaford is a dog registrar, and is not that another business?— Mr Johns objected to these questions. — Witness continued : Mr Johns offered to lay the wager three or four times, and not till then did Sloane say, " give the money to Hannaford." — Mr Johns : Was not Sloane drunk in the Public Hall at an election meeting last NoA'ember ?—? — Witness : I think he had been "imbibing."—Mr Gresliam : I object to this.— Mr Johns : Sloane is a dangerous drunkard, he deals in dings, and may at any tune endanger the lives of Her Majesty's subjects. — Mr P. MacDonnell next gave evidence, Remembered Sloatic coming into Devm's hotel about 10 o'clock on the night oi 11th February, followed by Johns, who called Sloane "a drunken, lying blackguard," and threatened to chastise him. Johns put out Ins hand as if to strike Sloane. Witness got between them to present any blows being stiuck. Sloan? made use of no offensive language in the hotel. —Mr Johns : Did you hear me utter the words, "I would break his head?" — I don't remember. — Mr Johns; I simply threatened to chastise him as I would a naughty child. — Mr Hugh Ramsay, in evidence, stated that Johns said in the hotel that if Sloane did not keep quiet he would give it to him some of those days. Johns was excited, but not much. He was in a little bit ot a passion. He made a motion to throw ofF his coat to fight. — — Mr Johns : Did 1 make use of any insult in the hall ? — Witness : I believe yon called Sloane "a drunken liar" previous to his making tlie remark about Hannaford. — Mr W. J. Thompson deposed that he was iix the hall on the night of the meeting. Heard Sloano say, '•Give the money to Hainiafoid." — Mr Johns : Do you consider that an insult ? — Witness : I don't know the man ; you might be owing the money to him. — Mr Johns : Would you consider the language refemng to a disreputable Mr Greslum : I object. — The Bench (to Mr Jolnib) : You will do yoiuself no good by ■such a course. — Mr James Walton, in evidence, said that he heaul Sloane say to Johns, " Pay Hannafoid. " Did not hear Johns give any aggravation to cause this insult. — Mr Johns : After the insult was ofleied to me did X not piotest? — No; but you woie asked to withdraw and yoM did. He thought the meeting was called to bring the domain trustees into discredit, tho remainder of Mr Walton's g\ idence was lather in favour of Mr Sloane, and concluded tho whole of the plaintiffs evidence. — Mr Johns stated at this stage, that he had no wissh to proceed with the eountei -ch.n go against Sloiine, ie alleged insult, by his allusion to Hannaford, as the gist of the complaint had been licaid m the Hist action. Ho would, thercfoie, witluhaw it.— Mr Gicsham then addicssed the Couit,ic\ie\\ ing the e\ idence adduced, which lie contended could leave no doubt w liatever on the minds of their Woi ships that tho ollence recited in the indictment was committed by Mr Johns. The defendant himself admitted it. He not only did so, but ho aggravated the case in the Couit by lefeiring to his client at an election meeting in Novembei last, and also by stating that lie ay as a "diunken chemist," and as such likely to endanger the lives of Her Majesty's be&c subjects. Mi Johns, he said, was a man of education, and was a little while ago a candidate to represent the Waipa constituency in Parliament, and yet he was found committing oftences at 10 o'clock at night in a public-house under the Vagrant Act.— Mr Johns then addressed the Court, and stilted his case. He said tho insult conveyed to him in tho Hall by the mention of Haimafoid, was such that no man of spirit or respect foi himself could stand. As for his manner to Sloane in the "Commercial," he intended nothing more than to chastise him as he would do a naughty child. He never intended to stiike. He was undefended, and would leave the matter to their Worships to decide. He thanked the C/omt for the fair and impaitial hearing. The Court, after a, short deliberation, fined the defendant Is, and costs £0 11s.