LAW AND JUSTICE.

Waikato Times, Volume XVIII, Issue 1515, 21 March 1882, Page 3

LAW AND JUSTICE.

to the editorsSir, — During the hearing of the cases Sloane v. Johns, and Johns v. Sloane, at Te Awamutu recently, a legal point of great importance cropped up, and as the matter is of vital interest to us all, I will, with your permission, briefly lay it before your readers. It is this : A man may publicly make use of the grossest and most insulting language towards another man, and may even repeat such conduct as often as he pleases 5 but, if the insults be thinly veiled so that the by-standers will not affirm that "had such language been applied to them they would have struck the utterer," he is held blameless. On the other hand, should the man insulted strike the offender, or even thx - eaten to chastise him, he is liable himself ; as in the case Sloane v. Johns, heard here on the 23rd ult., where the defendant, for threatening to chastise, &c, was fined a shilling and heavy costs. Now, it is evident that if this be the right interpretation of the law, no man among us, or his wife, or sister, or daughter, is really protected from insult in the public street, since to casual hearers the coarsest insult might be couched in language that would seldom convey to them its full force and meaning, and to rouse them to what might be termed the "striking point," Heretofore I have ever thought that the law, as upheld in our ordinary courts, protected not only our lives and properties, but also what is, or should be, equally dear to us — our characters and reputations. Such, however, is not the case — at least, as the law is expounded by the llesident Magistrate for Waikato. — I am, &c, Wm. Johns. Te Awamutu, March 20th.