CHARGE AGAINST INSPECTOR CULLEN.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIV, Issue 4, 5 January 1903, Page 5

CHARGE AGAINST INSPECTOR CULLEN.

CASE DISMISSED.

John Cnllen, Inspector of Police for, the Auckland district, was then charged that on October 22, at Auckland, be did use insulting language to the informant, William Richardson, by saying, "You are a cadger, and you live by cadging. I will have you prosecuted as a common vagrant. I am not going to allow you to create disturbances, with intent to provoke a breach of the peace." Mr J. C. Martin appeared fof the defence. William Richardson, the complainant, stated that between 10 and 11 o'clock on the day in question, he was in Lower Queen-street. He saw Inspector Cullen there talking to another gentleman. Witness was distributing prohibition leaflets, and offered defendant one. The defendant said that during the day he would see that he (witness) was served with a bit of blue paper. Witness replied that he would be pleased to accept all the pieces of blue paper that the police liked to serve on him. Defendant then called him a "cadger," which witness denied. Defendant said. "I say you are, you live by cadging." Witness denied this. Defendant then said, "If you are not careful, and do not mind what you are about, I will have you prosecuted under the Vagrant Act." Witness replied that defendant had no right to say such a thing. A ~' ' By Mr Martin: Defendant was talking to another person at the time. He did not remember saying anything about the Choral Hall incident to defendant. He had always been on good terms with defendant. Mr Martin said that the defence was a denial of the charge. Defendant, in evidence, said that he was not personally acquainted with the complainant, and had no illwill of any kind against him. He had only previously spoken to him once, and that was three years ago. On the morning in question witness was speaking to a man in Queenstreet, when complainant came up and tried to give witness a leaflet. Witness said he did not want any of the leaflets. Complainant persisted, and said, "It might do you good." Complainant said in an offensive tone, ■"I do not blame, you for what has occurred at the Choral Hall the other night, you had to do what Ministers told you." Witness said that he had not been spoken to by Ministers, and that what had been done had been done on his own responsibility. Witness added that he had given instructions for an information to be laid against him for disturbing the meeting at the Choral Hall. Complainant said, "You dare not do such a thing; if you do your name will stink in the nostrils of all the inhabitants of Auckland." Witness said he could not help ithaij, and he warned Complainant that if he did not behave himself he (witness) would take steps to have him bound over to keep the peace. He also said it might be a question as to whether he should not prosecute him for cadging about • the streets. Complainant replied, "I am not a cadger, and I do not get my living by cadging; but I will admit that I did cadge the money to pay for those leaflets." Mr Richardson then walked away but came back, and again attempted to enter into conversation. Witness, . however, walked away. Witness was asked by complainant to give the name of the man he was talking to, but the man was unwilling and witness did not give his name. Cross-examined by complainant, witness said that he considered complainant interrupted him rudely in his conversation. He was always afraid of a riot in connection with complainant's meetings. There had been many disturbances at these meetings. Complainant, in witness' opinion, used language at these meetings which might at any time provoke a breach of the peace.

His Worship said that- he did not suppose that the information Would have been laid by informant if proceedings had not been taken against him in connection with the Victoriastreet meeting. There were no grounds whatever for convicting in the present case. Mr Cullen was a. man trained to discipline his tongue, and Mr Richardson was apparently exactly the opposite. It was a most extraordinary thing that men who were most abusive, most scandalous and most defamatory towards other people were the first to take, offence at the mildest rebuke to themselves. The case would be dismissed.

Mr Martin asked for costs, but His Worship said he Avould not grant them because of the other prosecution.