A REMARKABLE CASE.
KROtSI THE COSTLEY SOME. COM&LAINANT'S EXAMINATION OBJECTED TO. In the Police Court this morning, before Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., William Law, an inmate of the Costley Home, charged William Bannerman, the manager of the institution, with assault on <* about August 9, 1908. Mr. Lund on appeared for the defendant, and the Informant was not represented by counsel. William Law, a blind man, and an inmate of the Costley Home, said he came to Auckland in 1885, and had been in the institution for over twelve months. On the 9th.August, the manager accused him of having committed a breach of the regulations by not having a bath, which witness denied. The defendant, he said, became enraged, and caught him by the neck and arm, dragging him to the bathroom. Witness alleged the manager stripped him, and after sending the assistant away for additional help, caught witness by the throat and said, "You hound, I'll throttle you." Witness called him a "cowardly, murdering dog." The defendant punched him on •the jaw, and witness said, "You have a set on mc because I said you killed a man." When the attendants arrived, he was not molested in any way, and was put in a warm bath. Mr. Kettle: You say that he killed a man?—. Well, he was responsible for an old man dying. He kept him for four days without tucker. Witness continued to say that the regulations provided for a weekly bath, and he had always kept that rule. There were other men who "had not had a bath since the day they were born." Mr. Kettle : Why "did he complain about you, then?— Well, he got a set on mc when I told the Rev. Budd about the old man's death. Cross-examined, witness said this was the only occasion on which he had had trouble with the manager. Did you tell the Board's committee a little while ago that all the food you got was sour bread and dirty water?— Well, that is all if is. Three years ago, continued witness, he had bean in the home for a couple of months. Didn't you make things so hot that you were asked by the Board to leave ?— No. I was told that if I did not like to remain I could go. And you went?— Yea. When you were re-admitted were you ; not warned to curb your filthy tongue? —No, certainly not. Witness went on to deny that he had a "filthy tongue." You made complaints to the com--1 mittee, did you not?— Yes. They inquired into your complaint ■ about this bath incident, did they not. and reprimanded you for your breach J of rules and your language?—No, they ■ did not. I was not told about it. Have you forgotten that the com- ' plaint was dismissed as absolutely ' groundless?—No; they would hardly give mc a hearing. At the inquiry did not the gentleman in the chair say that you would have to obey and comply with the rules?—No, ! nothing of the kind. ' Were you procured at the late inquiry to rake up this old charge?— Yes. I was there but I was not called. ; Didn't you make more trouble on your return?— No. Didn't you attack a man named Brady ' with a knife?— No. Brady was on the opposite side of the table and I was , talking to someone else. He told mc to shut up and I said I would run the knife down his throat. Was it not on account of your language that Brady complained?—No, it was not. After Brady's complaint was investigated, did not the committee warn you against a repetition of such conduct T— No. I was not told about it. After you threatened Brady with the knife, did you not go for £im with your stick? —I was lying down and he played ' mc out. I said: "If you try to throw off 'at mc, I'll wooden you out with my ', stick." , Yes, and you threw your stick at him?— Yes. Are you not a man with an ungovernable temper?—No, I don't think ?o. When the committee had dealt with J you, you had an interview with Mr ' Kettle?— Yes. i And did you not brag about what Mr Kettle was going to do for you?— No. I did not. ' Mr Kettle: He came to see mc and the interview took place in the presence of the Clerk of the Court. Mr. Lundon: Yes, I understand that, but he is so free with his tongue. Mr. Kettle: He insisted on laying the [ information, so I sent him down to the office. ' Mr. Lundon: Yes, but I do not think ' he told you that the whole matter had been investigated by the committee. Mr. Kettle: No, he did not say so. Continuing, witness said he had never refused to take his baths regularly, and ; there was no need for the manager to complain. Dr. King, who was present in Court, ' rose at this stage and informed the Court that he objected to the crossexamination of the complainant. Mr. Kettle: Why is that? Dr. King: Hβ is absolutely irresponsible for what he says, Mr. Kettle: Whom are you appearing for? Dt, Kings I am the medical officer of the Costlev Home, ' Mr. Kettles' You say It will affect his health. : Dr. King! Decidedly yes, Mr, Lundon! I will be as gentle as I can, Doctor, but I want to attack this * statement at tho earliest possible mo- ' ment, Air, Kettlei Hβ Is a lunatic, then? Dv. Kingi No, I don't say that, 1 Mr, Kettle l Well, he has made a ' charge against Mr, Bannerman, and what are we to do'j ' Dr, King i I cannot say, but I object Ito hia cross-examination. He is under one, 1 Mr. Kettle: Well, I will make a note of your objection. You say he is not a 1 lunatic? 1 Dr. King! No, but he is suffering from ' a, disease known as locomotor ataxia, 1 which produces these spasmodic attacks, i and he Iβ not responsible for what he ; says or does. ; Mr. Kettles Very well. Doctor, I will note your' objection, and you will be 1 here to give evidence later on? 1 Dr. King: Yes : ; After the luncheon adjournment, the 1 complainant in the course of his crossexamination, said that the head attendi r*nt, Simpson, wno had only been in the • Home a fortnight at the time of the occurrence, came into the ward fa give out ; clean clothing and superintend the batiir . arrangements. He did nos a§k wit: 1 ness to go intq a bath, and he (Law) did not use any b,ad language to Simpson. The manager did not point gut to, wit- , ness that his clothes were dirty, and did not reason wij;li him in an endeavour to get him tq tyive. a uaifc. (Proceeding.)
Permanent link to this item
A REMARKABLE CASE., Auckland Star, Volume XL, Issue 75, 29 March 1909
A REMARKABLE CASE. Auckland Star, Volume XL, Issue 75, 29 March 1909
Using This Item
Fairfax Media is the copyright owner for the Auckland Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence . This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Fairfax Media. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Auckland Libraries.