R.M. COURT, CAMBRIDGE.

Waikato Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2257, 24 December 1886, Page 2

R.M. COURT, CAMBRIDGE.

Thursday.—^Before Mr H. W. Northcroft, R.M., and Mr J. Gwynneth, Mayor). Hk\YITT v. KlNUAli).— This case had been heard on a former occasion, and judgment was now given for defendant. Lewis and Simpson v. 11. Hiokson. — Claim, £13 3s Bd. Mr Dyer for plaintiffs. Defendant did not appear, Mr T. 13. Lewis proved the case. — Judgment for plaintiffs with cost*.— Mr Dyer asked that a speedy execution might be granted, as Hickson was about to leave the neighbourhood. LewivS and Simpson v. Wji, Voice.— Claim £34. Mr Dyer for plaintifis. The defendant is a blacksmith at Te Awamutu. — Mr T. B. Lewis, of the firm of Lewis and Simpson, gave evidence. — Judgment for plaintiffs for £29 13s 6d, and £5 3s costs. T. Clements y. J. Clements, Waikato Coal and Shipping Co. \. J. B. Lamb, and R, Gernng v. F. Hartley, were ordered to btand over until next court day. This concluded the civ il cases.

Kincau) v. Hewitt. Mr Dyer for informant, Mr Whitaker for defendant. Mr E. Hewitt was charged with using insulting language in a public place, to wit Duke-street, Cambridge, on the 2Gth of October last, the words complained of being, " If you want to get out of paying your debts, plead you are a drunkard," such words being calculated to cause a breach of the peace. Defendant pleaded not guilty. A long discussion here took place as to tho payment of the costs of the adjournment. The R.M. being satisfied as to their being paid, ordeied the case to proceed. Mr Whitaker said there were two Acts under which this case would come, in one of which there \va» a£s penalty, and in the other it was only necessary to bind the defendant over to keep the peace. He asked which he had to answer. Mr Dyer : My learned friend may have to answer both. Air Whitaker: It is clearly an offence against the Justices of the Peace Act, and he can be bound over to keep the peace. Mr Northcroft : To come under that section they would require surety, but in this case no surety is asked for. I don't think it comes within that section. The section of the Police Offences Act is mentioned, and you will not find a single case in this district in which it has not been intended to proceed under that section. Mr Dyer said, the information had been laid under Sub-section 29, of Section 3, of the Police Offences Act, 1884. Under that Act it did not matter to whom the words were addressed, so that they were utteied in a public place, or would tend to provoke a breach of the peace. The case arose out of a. former one, in which the informant had pleaded drunkenness. Hewitt was formeily the proprietor of the Criterion Hotel in Duke-street, and Kincaid was a storekeeper in the same street. On the 20th of October, Kincaid was passing the hotel, and Hewitt, who was standing in the doorway, made use of the expressions complained of. These exuressions insinuated that tho plea of drunkenness was for the pin pose of getting out of an honest debt. He should ask the coiut to impose the line of £!), audio bind defendant over in such suiHies os they thought fit. Win. Kincaid depo^d : I am a storekeeper in Cambridge. I was pacing defendant's hotel/about 11 a.m. on the 20th of Octobu 1 List. He was standing in the doorway, talking to Messrs Arnold and Aniell. \s I passed he bawled out, <l if you want to get rid of your debts, plead drunkenness." I wheeled round and said, " That's all right, Mr Hewitt. I've got you now." He grinned at me. I made the remark to the others, " You have heard him now." Anscll and Arnold walked away down the street, and I went into Mr Dyer's office and laid the information. I can always pay my just debts. Cr<»s examined by Mr Whitaker : I was defendant in the action Hewitt v. Kincaid for rent. I defended that action. It was for ii debt alleged to be due by me to Mr Hewitt. In defence [ pleaded I was drunk. I don't lemember the date on which I was drunk. I must refer to my papeii>. (Mr Whitaker: Have you lost all consciousness again?) I consiier the remark was addressed to me. I believe the parties were talking about something else, but have no proof. Hewitt was standing on his doorstep. He grinned at me in a demoniacal way that he can give when he loves his friends. I cinnot copy his facial expression. 1 will swear lie did not say he was talking to someone else. I felt vary much like fighting Hewitt. I sometimes go to the Presbyterian Church. I am not one of the elders. I recollect hearing a sermon in which the minister referred to one of the congregation getting drunk. Re-examined by Mr Dyer : I used the words "I have got yon now" because defendant had used similar expressions to me on former occasions when 1 had no f . any witnesses. On this occasion I had several respectable ones. Mr Dyer called Lewis M. Clare, John Arnold and John Ansell as witnesses for the informant, all of whom corroborated his statement*, tho last named causing great amusement by some of his remarks. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Whitaker briefly addressed the bench, and then stated the following objections :—: — l^t. The evidence had so far shown that the woids were utteied within the limits of defendant's house. Was that a public place? 2ud. Pait of the information had not been pioved in evidence, viz., that the words wcie likely to cause a breach of the peace. 3rd. That the evidence did not bear out the information. 4th. That the whole of the general e\ idence ought to be di-inis^ed on account of its frivolous nature, oth. The ci\ ii ca^o not having been decided, and Kincaid having pleaded drunkeness, was it a gi\we offence to make the remark ? On these points he asked the bench to dismiss the case. Mr Northcroft said that Mr Dyer must answer the two first objections, as he thought they were valid. Mr Dyer addressed the bench at considerable length, but failed to prove the words were uttered in a public place to the satisfaction of the R.M., who therefore dismissed the case. Costs £2 3s.