A STRIKING DISCORD. A CITY ORGANIST AND A MUSICAL CRITIC

Evening Post, Volume XLVII, Issue 147, 23 June 1894, Page 1 (Supplement)

A STRIKING DISCORD. A CITY ORGANIST AND A MUSICAL CRITIC

Before Mr. Nicolson,' P.M., in the Mebourne District Court recently, David Lee, City Organist, summoned T. H. Guenott, musical critic of the Argus, for having assaulted him on 25th May. Plaintiff, who conducted his own case, Btated that on the afternoon of the day in question he met two theatrical agents, Mr. W. Jenkins, and Mr. J. Brown, in Swanson-street. As he had just concluded a couple of hours' practice upon the Town Hall organ, he " felt quite inclined for a refresher," and invited his friends to join him in a drink at the City Club Hotel. Upon reaching the footpath opposite the hotel they halted to discuss the Argus critic and criticisms. Whilst the conversation was proceeding, the defendant happened to walk past, and witness excitedly exclaimed, " That's the demon ! that's the demon ! " The next moment, without any warning, he found himself sprawling in the gutter from the effects of a blow dealt by the defendant. Mr. Pirani, who appeared for defendant — As my client passed, did you not remark, " that thief ? " Witness — I did not. If the two gentlemen present say you did? — Well, I should be surprised. Had you a previous quarrel with defendant ?— Oh, that's got nothing to do with this caseTwo witnesses, Joseph Brown and William Jenkins, who were present during the altercation, were exa- j mined. The former stated that de- ! fendant said to plaintiff, " Don't call me a thief," to which Lee replied, " I did not say that ; I called you a demon." Without further remark defendant knocked the plaintiff down. According to Jenkins, the plaintiff, in addition to stigmatising defendant as a demon, remarked, "That thief." Defendant admitted the offence, but pleaded in extenuation that he had struck plaintiff under great provocation, as plaintiff had addressed him as " that thief." Mr. Nicolson said he agreed that defendant had been the subject of unwarranted provocation. Defendant should remember, however, that although Lee had made an insulting remark he had no right to take the law into his own hands ; he had his legal remedy. He (Mr. Nicolson) regretted that the case had come before the Court. Defendant would be fined in the cum of 10s.