THE COURTS YESTERDAY

Evening Star, Issue 8117, 17 January 1890, Page 2

THE COURTS YESTERDAY

CITY POLICE COURT.

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq,, R.M.)

Drunkenness.— Ellen Wilson alias Dufty and Mary M‘llroy were fined 10s, in default forty-eight hours’ imprisonment; a first offender, for being drunk at the railway station, was dealt with in a similar manner.

Maintenance. Thomas Hudson was charged with failing to contribute sufficiently towards the maintenance of his wife in the asylum. Mr Solomon appeared for the defendant.—-An order was made by consent for the payment of os per week. Plying‘for Hire Without a License,— Edward Buddicombe was charged with plying for hire at the railway station without first having obtained an annual license from the District Traffic Manager. Mr Haggitt appeared for; the prosecution and Mr Solomon defended.— Mr Haggitt said the information was laid by Mr Coring under the by-law made by the Railway Commissioners, and published in the ‘Gazette’ of November 14, ISS9. The facts ol the case were these: On the datestatedin the information the accused was in charge of a cab which was plying for hire within the railway premises at Dunedin without having, as Mr Coring contends, a license under the regulations. It was contended that the vehicle in question was licensed under the name of another person. Mr Coring, however, was not aware that another person had taken out a license in respect to this cab, but the accused was not a person licensed in respect to any vehicle. The question, then,"was whether the by-law exceeded the authority vested' in the Commissioners, or whether the by-law did in the first instance require that the driver 'be licensed as well ad the vehicle, or whe' her it only required the vehicle to be'licenSed. If so, whether a license in respect to a vehicle availed after the vehicle had 'been transferred to another man. The facts of the case were admitted, and the accused gave evidence as to a license haying been taken but in respect to the cab in question by another man.—Mr Solomon contended, ip ' the ’ first place, that the by law wqs bad and' Jiad no effect whatever; and in thp second place, assuming the by-law was good, that it would allow the cab to be driven under the old license which had been taken out.—Mr Carew said; I think there is no doubt that the license is taken out in respect to the vehicle, and not the person.—After further argument between counsel, His Worship held that the regulation was ultra vires, and dismissed the case.—The accused was then charged With plying for hire within the railway premises without a license from the general manager of railways.-The case was allowed to stand over for His Worship’s decision. Wine Selling at the Exhibition.On the application of Mr Fraser the charge against Alexander Fletcher and Maria Bell, of selling wine at the Exhibition without a Uc ®° se ? adjourned for a week. The charge of assault preferred bv Isaac Isaacs against John Davis, Thomas Hxitchinson, and Jesse Haymes was proceeded with after we went to press yesterday. Mr Solo, mon (in opening the case) said that during the past few weeks there had been an election for the presiding officer of the district in connection with the Druids. The informant in this case was a candidate for that position, and one of the defendants (Mr Haymes) was also a candidate for the same position. On the Bth inst. there was an election at Port Chalmers, and Mr Isaacs was the successful candidate. The defendants were considerably annoyed at his success, anfi before..they left Post Chalmers

they showed signs of their intention to have a row. Mr Isaacs endeavored to get out of their way, and instead of getting into a firstclass carriage he went into the guard’s van with another man named Earnshaw, and one or two of kis other friends. After the informant got into the van one of the defendants (Davis) kicked up a row with Earnshaw and Isaacs, and Earnshaw was a head with an umbrella. At Pelichet Bay they all got out of the tram. Isaacs and Butler got out first for the purpose of going home. The three defendants got out afterwards and immediately commenced to blackguard Isaacs and call him all sorts of names. After a few I words Davis made a rush at Isaacs, but hit Butler over the head. Evidently he did not intend to hit him, as he begged his pardon afterwards. In the meantime Isaacs ran away, and Davis and Hutchinson ran after him. The informant also thought that Haymes ran after him, but there was some doub|| about that. When Mr Isaacs got part of the way up Albany street, Hutchinson struck him before he was down, and after he_ was down he struck him again, kicked him, and so maltreated him that he called out “ Police ! ” and “ Murder ! ” A constable and Mr Kennedy (a young man) hearing the cries came up, and found Mr Isaacs in such a state that it was impossible for him to speak. The constable and Mr Kennedy raised him in their arms and got him taken to the police station, and he told his story. The evidence would show that the defendants, who were supposed to be respectable men, occupying good positions in society, had behaved in a brutal manner, and in a way that only larrikins were supposed to do. Not only did they behave in the disgraceful manner he had stated, but when the policeman came upon the scene ho asked what was the matter, and the defendants said: “Oh, here’s Isaacs on the ground ; he’s drunk.’’’ This statement, however, was absolutely false. It was merely a cowardly excuse to account for the man’s position. He should state that the informant was so badly hurt that it took him a week or more to recover from his injuries. The offence was a criminal one, and should be punished in a criminal manner; no monetary punishment was sufficient to cover it. He called Thomas Kennedy, who said that on the date mentioned he was in bed at his home in Leith street, when he heard someone calling out. He rose from his bed and went in the direction of the sounds, and then noticed complainant lying on the ground. Hutchinson and Davis were standing on the footpath, and witness asked them what was wrong. Hutchinson replied that there had been a “ sort of row.” When witness attempted to pick complainant up, the latter fell back again, and seemed to be stunned. Witness believed that Davis, the constable, and himself picked him up. Witness did not notice any signs of liquor on Mr Isaacs—he seemed perfectly sober. To Mr Fraser : When witness reached the place where complainant was lying he was not calling out '« Murder ” then ; he was lying on the road moaning. Witness did not notice Harm's until Mr Isaacs had been placed upon his feet. Complainant did not state that he had been kicked he said he had been chased and knocked down.—William Earnshaw said that he was in the company of some of the lodge men and complainant on the date of the alleged assault. They were to Port Chalmers in the’ train, and intended taking a carriage separate from defendants, when Davis came up and abused witness and complainant. Complainant was not drunk, neither was he under the influence of liquor,—Complainant said he had no drink at all up to half-past nine on the night of the assault; and during the whole day and night had only two glasses of ale. He was as sober then as he was at the present moment. When witness and Mr Butler were proceeding home after leaving the Pelichet Bay railway station defendants abused him for a long time, and used disgusting language. He’ answered: “Go and ask Mrs ,” and Hutohinson_ said: “You Jew! I’ve had r 0U or Eome time, and now 111 give it you. Just then witness’s companion cried out as though he was hurt, and upon witness turning round his coat was grasped by Haymes, while Hutchinson struck him in the mouth. Witness was knocked down, and upon attempting to rise was knocked down again and kicked. Witness had not provoked defendants in any way except by calling out to them as stated, io Mr FraserSince witness bowled out some irregularities in connection with lodge matters in which Hutchinson was concerned there had been plenty of rows between witness and defendant. Since witness had shown that culpable neglect had been manifested in connection with certain lodge 1 matters he had had no pe.ice from defendant 1 Hutchinson and others —John Butler also ga\e evidence, which tended to exculpate Haymes, as it appeared that he had Stopped behind to assist Butler in findmg his hat, which had been knocked off in the scuffle which at first ensued between the . Parties. Mr Fraser, for the defence, said ' tu , C 3, r 3 t0 blame in matter. there had been a considerable amount of , exaggeration with regard to it, and the s whole aspect in which the case had been ■ brought before the Court was one of e-- • aggeration. As a matter of fact, there was i no case against Haymes. The informant had deliberately and maliciously included his name m the information for the express , purpose of winning an election to the presidency of the Druids by a disgraceful subterfuge. Haymes was as innocent as a man well could be in eqnnection with this affair. Tfyere was a certain element of truth in the statement made by his learned , friend. In the first place, there was no ; doubt that these friendly societies did have : trouble at elections, and" there was bad feelr ing between parties. In this case he would P rova _ that there was nothing like the proj vocation given to the complainant that he . said there was; and furthermore, so far as . Hutchinson was concerned, he never opened • his mouth to the complainant. The com - . plainant, on the other hand, turned round and threw ont blackguardly slurs acaiust . Hutchinson. If he got thrashed he richly i deserved the punishment he got. Ris learped friend had puttheworstasppctopthecasetr,afc . he possibly could. Hewentfchelengthoftelliuo His Worship that the case was not one for a fine, and yet he must admit that his client deliberately threw out a taunt to this man Hutchinson—that he brought up a miserable dead scandal of three or four years ago, and so enranged Hutchinson as to’ cause him to lose control of himself. The punishment Mr Isaacs, however, got was very slight. If he had stood up on his legs he would have got far more, but he knew something of prizering rules, and knew that when a man was do wn he would notbe severely hurt. —Andrew King bricklayer, stated that he came from Port Chalmers in the same train as the informant and the defendants. He also got out at Pelichet Bay, and as he was coming up Albany street Mr Isaacs asxed him if he would come to his assistance. He passed witness and caught hold of him by the waist while passing. He afterwards fell on the road. Hutchirsou was then about 10yds behind him. Witness' thought Isaacs was the worse : of liquor. He smelt very strongly of drink, and Vvhcn he fell witness took for granted’that He was under the influence of liquor. When witnesa saw Hutchinson, Davis was about 20yda behind him, and was carrying a rifle in his hand. Isaacs kept calling out “ Police before he came up to witness and also after he fell down Davis never took any part in the row at all. When the policeman came upon the scene he simply helped to lift Isaacs up. The latter theu said “ Didn’t this man ill-treat me.” Witness replied “lam 9 a y anything aboqt it.” Hutchinson came up to Isaacs he hit him four times. The latter was lying on the ground, and witness pulled Hutchinson off him. Isaacs then got up and started to run, but fell on the pavement. He got up again and Hutchinson followed him, and when he got across the street he fell again. Hutchinson then struck him again, and witness pulled Hutchinson off the second time. That was the finish of the row. When the policeman came upon the scene he asked Isaacs who had ill-treated him, and he said Haymes Davis, and Hutchinson. When he referred to Haymes he pointed to witness as being Haymes, although Haymes was not there. The further hearing of the case was adjourned for a week, Mr Fraser intimating that he had several other witnesses to call.