RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3110, 16 June 1881, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THURSDAY, JUNE 16

(Before H. Eyre Kenny, Esq., R.M.) INSUUTING LANGUAGE.

Robert Cooper was charged, on the information of W. L. Rees, with using insulting and abusive language calculated to cause a breach of the peace. Mr White appeared for complainant, and Mr Brassey for defendant. Mr Brassey, at the commencement of the case, submitted that the Court had no jurisdiction. The Act provided that a case must be heard before a Justice of the Peace having jurisdiction in the place nearest to where the offence was committed. His Worship said the case was not brought before him as R.M., but as a Justice of the Peace, and as such he had jurisdiction all over the colony. The witnesses were then ordered out of Court. W. L. Rees called and sworn, said he went on board the Ringarooma at Gisborne on the 10th of June to come to Napier. He met defendant there. Witness was talking to Mr Murray, M.H.R., when defendant came up and stood close to them. The steamer was lying at anchor at Gisborne at the time. Defendant began to talk at him. The defendant had been bound over on three different occasions to keep the peace towards him (witness) during the last three years. Defendant said in a loud voice, " if I had known these b swindlers were on the ship I would not have come on board." Witness walked away. Up to ten o'clock at night, from time to time, defendant came and sat near him, and used abominable language towards bim. About half-past 8 defendant came close to him, and used some insulting Maori terms to him. He afterwards went inte the saloon, and defendant continued shouting out abusive terms! such as swindlers and cheats. In the saloon defendant kept shouting out bis (witnesses's) name along with others, and saying that he was a cheat and swindler. On one occasion, defendant said, speaking at him, "he was a parson once, and now he is a lawyer ; it requires a good deal of cheating to become a lawyer." He kept up this kind of language for hours, until people in the saloon had to get up and go away. When witness went to bed the same language was being used, and when he awoke just before dawn it was still going on. It was continued until the ship came into Napier. He had been subjected to such langage on two previous occasions on board ship. The manner as well as tbe language of defendant was insulting. Cross-examined by Mr Brassey: He was in practice in Gisborne, and was carrying on some negotiations in reference to land. He had not had occasion to come into contact with defendant in reference to land. He was not on friendly terms with defendant; never had been ; should 1 2 sorry to be on friendly terms with him. It was not on account of any ill-feeling existing in his (witness's) mind that made him think the words were meant for him. At the. time defendant used the offensive words he nodded his head towards him. He complained to the captain about the way in which he had been used. By the Court: He would swear that tbat be had not tbe slightest doubt on his mind that the words were levelled at him, and that they were used for tbe purpose of causing a breach of the peace. Henry Ellison confirmed much of the previous witness's evidence, and added the defendand said there was a nest of scoundrels on board the ship, and he named Mr Rees and Mr Day at the time. Defendant also said he was engaged in a law suit with Mr Rees, and that he intended at the conclusion of the case, in front of the Supreme Court, to slap Mr Rees on the face three times. He accompanied the words by slapping his hand three times. Complainant was recalled, and in answer to Mr Brassey said that when defendant used the words complained of there was a drunken native near, but the words were not used to him, but to witness. —— Day, clerk to Mr Rees, sworn, corroborated much of the former evidence, and added that he was lying on deck during the night. Defendant stood near him, and talked at him, at one time suggesting that they should throw him (witness) overboard. He also said that neither witness nor Bees had pluck enough to strike him, but they took legal action against him. Duncan M'Kay confirmed the evidence as to the language used. Mr Brassey, having addressed the Court for the accused,

His Worship said tde question before the Court was simply one of fact —were the words used insulting, and were they calculated to cause a breach of the peace. After hearing the evidence he must convict the defendant, and in so doing he confined himself strictly to tbe evidence, but in considering the sentence he was entitled to take into consideration other statements which he had beard outside the Court as to what took place on board. He had been told that the scenes on board the steamer on tbe night referred to in tbe*evidence were of the most disgraceful description, and the language used most abominable. Such rowdyism on board a public conveyance must be put down: the matter was not only to be dealt with as a private grievance to Mr Bees, but as a public question, and the Court was bound to mark it's sense of each conduct. The defendant would be

fined £10 and costs, with counsel's fee, or one month's imprisonment with hard labor. Mr Brassey asked to be allowed to appeal, on the ground of the Court having no jurisdiction. His Worship said it was a point of law, and he could appeal if notice was given within fourteen days. Another charge arising out of the same circumstances was made against the defendant Cooper, and tbe magistrate was asked to bind him over to keep the peace. Mr Brassey submitted that this case had been brought out of ill-will. In tbe previous case the defendant had been fined heavily, and sucb a fine would meet all the requirements of the case. His Worship said, if the evidence in the previous case wa9 admitted, he had no alternative but to bind the defendant over. Mr Brassey asked that defendant's own recognizances should be sufficient. His Worship said that he would require sureties, but he would not on'sr defendant into custody at once, but would give until Monday to get sureties. Mr Rees submitted that the order must be made out at once, and the amount of surety required fixed, and he would ask that the period during which defendant be bound over should be considerable, and the amount substantial. He had been harrassed fcr three years in the same way. His Worship said that defendant would be bound over, himself in £200, and two sureties in £100 each, to keep the peace towards Her Majesty and all her subjects, and especially the complainant, for the period of twelve calendar months. In answer to Mr Brassey, His Worship said an appeal could also be made against this decision on the same grounds. The sureties would have to be found by Monday next, or a warrant would issue for the defendant's arrest.