THE GREASING CASE AT THE UPPER HUTT.

Evening Star, Issue 6700, 7 September 1885, Page 3

THE GREASING CASE AT THE UPPER HUTT.

At the Wellington Police Court last week, before Mr H. S. Wardell, R.M., John Cudby, Arthur Richardson, William Brown, and John M'Culloch were charged with assaulting—that is, knocking down and freasing— -Edward Irving Wilkii at the Tpper Hutt on the 20th ult. Mr Gully appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Jellicoe for the defence. The case against Charles Cudby was heard separately, the, other defendants leaving the dock. Edward Irving Wilkie, a young man, said "he was a baker residing at the Upper Hutt. About 9 p.m. on the day in question Cudby came to witness's shop and beckoned him out; and on witness asking him what he wanted, he replied " Oh, nothing; follow me." Witness followed him toCudby's Hotel, and then went into the kitchen with a person naTied M'lntosh. Shortly after this Cudby, Richardson, Brown, and M'Culloch entered, closed the door, and formed a mock Court, Richardson sitting on the table, and two of the defendants on each side of him. Witness was asked if he was guilty of having said something about M'lntosh, and he replied that he was not guilty. After a short consultation, one of the jury said: "Sense him, police," and ho was then laid hold of by Brown, M'Culloch, and Cudby, and forced on the floor under tho table. They then attempted to take off his clothes, but owing to his vigorous resistance were unable to do so. They then poured the grease out of a tin over his coat and trousers. Witness, after a few minutes, managedto escape, and he was hotly pursued by Cudby to his residence. None of the grease touched his skin. In answer to Mr Jellicoe, witness said he would swear that he had never said anything about M 'lntosh regarding a young lady. Richardson was the "judge," and nis robe consisted of a white towel tied round his neck. M'lntosh conducted the prosecution, and informed the " Bench "of the charge. He never heard a suggestion that he should be let off with a nominal penalty by "shouting" drinks all round. The person he first struggled with was Cudby. He never rolled with M'lntosh into the grease-pan. In his opinion the proceedings were not a joke. He told Cudby that he would not lay an information if an apology was published in the newspapers. As the defendants would not agree to do this, he took the present proceedings. This was all the evidence for the prosecution.

Arthur Richardson deposed that he was a butcher at the Upper Hutt. On the night in question he was at Cudby's Provincial Hotel. M'lntosh was there also, and said that he wanted to speak to complainant, and suggested that he should be sent for. Cudby went out and returned with Wilkie. They stopped talking in the passage for some time, till someone suggested that Wilkie should be put upon his trial to ascertain whether he was guilty or not. All except Cudby then went into the kitchen. Witness was elected judge, his robe consisting of the kitchen towel. One of the other defendants then endeavored to address the Court; but they broke down, and started laughing at each other, one of them saying that Wilkie would be discharged on condition that he stood drinks all round. This idea not appearing palatable to the complainant, the latter rushed for the door, where he was intercepted by M'lntosh, who struggled with him, Doth of them falling to the floor, where they rolled about till they came into collision with the tin of grease, which they upset, a quantity of the contents being spilled over the combatants. During this time witness kept his seat on the "bench," but was powerless to maintain order. Wilkie seemed to enjoy the fun as much as any of them. The noise was so great that the defendant Cudby came to the door and asked what it was all about. The complainant then departed, but witness did not see Cudby follow him, Cudby did not lay his hands on Wilkie, or the grease, at any part of the time. This evidence was mainly corroborated by Alexander M'lntosh, William Brown, and John M'Culloch.

The Bench, in dismissing the information, remarked that it was a strange circumstance that four men should in a witness-box swear directly opposite to the statements made on oath by the complainant. "Wilful and corrupt perjury was hidden somewhere. Mr Wardell expressed his disgust at the conduct of the defendant and his witnesses, and it was utterly beyond his comprehension to see four apparently respectable tradesmen behaving in such an idiotic manner. The fact of dismissing the cases did not prove in the slightest that one man had committed perjury and four men had spoken the truth. The information would be dismissed without costs,

- The charges against the other defendant* were dismissed, as was also the case against Charles Cudby for permitting riotous conduct iu his licensed house.