TROUBLE IN HOLLAND STREET

Dominion, Volume 16, Issue 179, 17 April 1923, Page 4

TROUBLE IN HOLLAND STREET

STIFF COLLAR AND OVERALLS

STORY OF NEIGHBOURS’ QUARREL

Differences of opinion among neighbours in Holland Street, allegedly due to the fact that a man wore office clothes in preference to overalls, culminated in cciirt proceedings. Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., listened to the story of the fued yesterday, when George William Burnette sought to have Annie Keith bound over to keep the peace. The defendant made a similar application in respect to the plaintiff.

The gist of the trouble, declared Mr W. Leicester, who appeared for the plaintiff was that plaintiff happened to bo an advertising agent instead of a road-digger or a wharf worker, and the defendant was apparently'of opinion that every man who did not wear overalls was a waster. The defendant, it was alleged, had set out on a campaign “to make it as hot as possible” for the, plaintiff and his family. Every time Burnette passed the gate the woman would make use of insulting language, and on one occasion she had complained at the school about the children. His Worship: How far apart are the houses ? Mr. Leicester: About 15 to 20 In " the witness-box, plaintiff said that he had six children, the eldest of whom was ■ “rising twelve.” Witness had lived in the house for six years, during the greater portion of which time he had been troubled by the defendant. “The trouble was,” he continued, “that they did not know where I worked, and Mrs. Keith’s two hoys used to follow me to try to find out. They would wait until I was coming home and then they would run and tell her. She would stand inside the gate and use insulting language to me.’’ ’

His Worship: What did she say? Witness: She called me a dirty, rotten waster, and said that my wife was a prostitute. Mr. Leicester: Were these two isolated cases or how' often did it happen? AVitness: “Practically every other day she was waiting for me. . . . The climax came when she went toHlie school and accused my child of using obscene language.” Witness also said that as the result of the trouble his wife had become a mass of nerves, and he and the children were receiving the benefit of it.

Mr. H. Cornish (counsel for defendant): Are you a model neighbour? Witness: I don’t know what a model neighbour is. His Worship : The only model neighbour is. the one who is separated by a 40ft. wall. Defendant’s Denial. Mr. Cornish said the defence was that the plaintiff’s story was, an invention and a tissue of falsehoods. Burnette was a most excitable individual and an annoyance to the neighbourhood, and Mrs. Keith stood in constant terror-of him. His Worship: What right had she to go to the school to complain about the children ?

Mr. Cornish: Because the children used the language. His Worship: Well, she had no right to. Mr. Cornish: I submit, sir, that she had every right. His Worship: She had no right. Mr. Keith, in evidence, declared that she had spoken to tho plaintiff only twice during two years and ten months.

His Worship: And what did yon say ? Witness: “Last Saturday morning I said I would give him in charge for quarrelling with another neighbour in the street. I spoke to him eleven years ago in the Hospital grounds at Newtown.” Mrs. Keith also stated that Burnette was drunk nearly everyday. ' His Worship: We are not trying him for drunkenness; we are trying your tongue. Continuing, witness said she had visited the school to make a complaint about Burnette’s children. His Worship: What business was it of yours ?

Witness: “I went there to ask the sisters to get the children to stop using the language.” The witness also alleged that Burnette had the habit of using obscene language every time he saw her. Several other witnesses gave evidence concerning the relations existing in Holland Street. The Magistrate’s Advice. His Worship observed that the street was not a very desirable one. “You had no right to go to the school,” he admonished the defendant. “You should have enough in this world to mind your own affairs and your own children. I’ll adjourn the matter for a fortnight. Now, don’t you interfere in any way or I’ll send you’ where you cannot. Mr. Burnette, don’t .you get too excited and don’t yon allow your wife to go talking to the neighbours, and you, Mrs. Keith, mind your own business. If you knew Mr. Burnette eleven years ago, forget it.” Mr. Cornish: Would Your Worship speak equally as vigorously to the plaintiff ? His Worship: Yes, but she wants it driven in. Adjourned for a fortnight.