"MAGGIE'S VOICE."

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 41, 18 February 1927, Page 5

"MAGGIE'S VOICE."

A COOK STREET COMPLAINT.

DIRTY LINEN WASHED IN COUAT. WOMAN FINED £2 AND COSTS. Some dirty linen was washed in Cook Street on the evening of January 7, and "dried" at the Police Court this morning. Maggie E?tall and Gertie Estall were each charged, before Mr. W. R. McKean, S.M.. with having used obscenc language. Mr. J. J. Sullivan appeared for both women. They pleaded not guilty.

C'oxmsel asked that defendants' names should be amended to real Royal, which thev said was their correct name.

The first witness called was Douglas Munns, who lives next door to the defendants. Prior to (r!iristmas, he said, he had occasion to complain about certain language that was used. On the evening of January 7 witness heard obscene language benig used. It was Maggie's voice, because he knew it so well. While witness and his wife were sitting on the verandah the same evening he was accused of keeping a house of ill-fame by one of the sisters. Mr. Sullivan: You would like to see these women away from there? —\es, 1 would.

Mrs. Ada Olive, the next witness, heard the words being used, and also came to the conclusion that it was '"Maggie s voice."

Mr. Sullivan: You did not raise your voice at all, of course? —Oh, no.

Margaret Munns, wife of the first witness, gave similar evidence, and considered that it was Maggie who had used the language. In reply to Mr. Sullivan witness said that Mrs. Olive did speak loudly.

Another female witness said the same, adding that she heard Mrs. Olive tell Maggie to "wash her dirty mouth." Mr. Sullivan: You are friends with the Munns? —Yes.

And with Mrs. Olive? —Yes. But not with the defendants? —Xo. The next witness was a man who boards at a house not far from where the defendants reside. He said that he beard the language used and thought that it was "Maggie's voice." Mr. Sullivan: You remember meeting her in the street not so very long ago? —Yes. And you did not like the reception you got? —The reception I got! Why, she invited me to cume and have a spot with her, and I would not go.

Mr. Sullivan: Would it be the first time you have gone with a woman to have a spot, come on now? —No. it wouldn't, but not with her sort.

.Mr. Sullivan said that it was quite evident that all the witnesses for the prosecution were friends. There was not one scrap of evidence against Gertie Royal, and counsel asked that the charge against her should be dismissed. Both sisters were positive that no obscene language was used and would swear to this.

Both did so, and added that they were in a hotel having a glass of ale after work on January 7, when Mrs. Olive, who was a barmaid there, insulted them. When she was going home that evening the defendants asked her why she insulted them earlier in the day. It was alleged that Mrs. Olive made use of an expression, and an argument commenced.

Mr. McKean dismissed the charge against Gertie Royal. However, he was satisfied that the other defendant had used bad language. She would be fined £2 anil costs, which amounted to £3 1-V. in default 14 days' imprisonment.