ALLEGED INSULTING LANGUAGE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIII, Issue 92, 19 April 1892, Page 5

ALLEGED INSULTING LANGUAGE.

A max nr.tned Albert Robert Brown was charged at tho Police Court) this morning , , before iJr. .). Giles, K.M., with having used fnstilt.inw language towards Elizabeth Dur.n.

Mr McGregor appeared for tho com plainnnt, and Mr F. jluunio for the e'efence,

Elizabeth Dunn deponed that until recently fiho was a barmaid at tho Victoria Hotel. She hod not seen him before tho night this trouble occurred, Witnoss deposed to defendant being in tho hotel in uniform. She went into the bar, when ho used most insulting language to her. She boxed liia ears,-whereupon he struck her on the cheek.

By Mr Baurr.9 : Witness did nob remember closing the street door of tho hotel the previous night when the defendant wished to come in. The man had not been to her bar. Siio did not use certain disgusting expressions to the defendant.

Honry R. Pyke deposed that he was boarding at the Victoria Hotel. At 11 o'clock on the evening of Friday, the Bch inst., witness was in a room at the back of. the bar. Thero was a man in uniform in the bar, but witness could r.ot swear defendant was that man, but lie was like him. The man used excessively bsd language to Miss Dunn. He did not hear Miss Dunn use foul language. During the four months he had lodged at the hotel, Miss Dunn'c conduct was quite proper. Mrs Luks stated that Mis 3 Dunn had been in her service six weeks. She remembered a man in uniform being in the hotel on the night in question. Sho heard some loud talk. She told Mi's Dunn to go to bed. Witness did not hear any foul languago used\ Miss Dunn had conducted herself as a lady should while in her employ.

Defendant deposed that the bad language was used by Miss Dunn to him. Witness denied having used the language imputed to him. He had no invention ot insulting Miss Dunn. When she struck him, he did lose his temper and hiu her. She then began to cry.

Edward Wainliouse deposed that he was in company with the defendant. Ho corroborated his evidence.

Hia vVorship said the evidence was conflicting. Either story by itseif did not seem very probable. The point was whether there was a case to call for sureties of the peace. He did not think there was , . The information was therefore- dismissed, no order being made as to costs.