THIS COURTS—TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 8715, 6 January 1892, Page 2

THIS COURTS—TO-DAY.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S CObfiT, (Before E, H. Oarew, Esc)., k,M.) .Abraham Levy, V. George Smith,—Claim', L 4 lls, on a judgment summons. Defendant did not appear, and an order was made for tho payment of the debt and costs on the 15tb inst., in default seven days' imprisonment. David Baxter v. David D, M’Farlane (Owake).— Claim, LBS 5s 2d, on a dishonored promissory note. Mr Bowler appeared for the plaintiff, for whom judgment Was given by default, with costs. CITY POLICE COGRI; (Bcfofe Messrs J. Robin, J. Elmor, and A. Thomson, Justices.) Drunkenness.— A first offender was convicted and discharged. Charles Manlove was fined 5?, in default twenty-four hours' imprisonment. Am Kenny was convicted and discharged, IftbEdEMT Language —Emanuel Lyons , charged with this offence, pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr Solomon, -Sergeant-major Bevin called Constable Cooney, who said that at a little after one o’clock this morhing defendant ahd thteb other men Webt to Wain’s Hotel and asked for a drink. They were refused, and witness went up quietly to them and asked them to go home. Witness had followed them from Rattray street, where defendant bad made use of bad language, and one of the other men had been roaring like a oow. Defendant defied witness to eay anything to him or to arrest him, ana said that he would stay there as long as be liked. Witness replied that that wonld be all right so long as defendant behaved himself. Defendant then made use of the language complained of. There were no persons passing at the time, but defendant called Otlt so loudly that people in the houses close by could have heard him. To Mr Solomon: Wain’s was not in witness’s beat. It was in the beat of another constable who was present when witness effected the arrest. Witness was not o little zealous in the matter, but believed that be was doing his duty.-—Constable Walton said that the bad language Was Commenced in Rattray hifeet and continued in front of Wain's. There were persons passing by. Defendant and the other men were under the influence of drink.—Mr Solomon, speaking for defendant, said that he wished to point out in the first place that the Act under which proceedings were taken was a very stringent one, and therefore there was all the more reason why a Bench should be careful in administering it. No doubt the constable was perfectly right in making an arrest off his beat if he found it necessary to do so, but it would be shown that Mr Lyons had been treated very harshly. He had lived here for the last twenty six years, and daring that time had conducted himself as a decent and respectable citizen ; and assuming, for the sake of argument, that the language complained of wae used—which was not admitted—he (Mr Solomon) would guarantee that during the past conpie of days thousands of people bad made use of expressions quite as bad, though no notice was taken of them. If every man who used bad language was to be rushed off to gaol, half tho population would eoon be there. It seemed to him that there had been an excess of zeal on the part of the constable. There were also discrepancies in the evidence of the constables, and he need hardly remind tho Bench that, ae remarked often, it was unsafe to rely on tho uncorroborated evidence of policemen, who were notoriously anxious for a conviction. In this case one constable said that there were persons passing up and down the street and the other said there were none. Further, tho night barman at Wain’s had said, when asked by the constable, that he did not hear bad language used ; and Mr Lyons would also deny the charge. He was certainly oat late, but he was trying to get the other men to go home, and bad reached the corner of his own street when he was arrested. That was poor thanks to a man for trying to do what was right.—James Brown, night porter at Wain’s, said that at one o’clock this morning defendant and three others rang and asked for a drink. He told them the bar was that. They were with him about three minutes, and then went away. Defendant did not make use of bad language in his (witness’s) hearing, but was trying to persuade his companions to go away, and showed no desire to create a disturbance.—Defendant also gave evidence. He said that no complaint was made to him in Rattray street of using bad language. It was not him who knocked at Wain’s door. He was trying to get the others home, and they were going up by the corner of Stafford street when two constables came up and said something about going home. Defendant replied “All right; but you have no occasion to interfere with me. lam not doing anything wrong,” He was at tho corner of Stafford street, having just seen one man into a cab, when one of tho constables took him by tho arm. Defendant said to him “You have no need to do that. I have not broken into a house.” Ho would swear that ho never made use of bad language of any sort, and could call Sergeant Gccrin, who took his bail at halfpast two, to testify that he was not drunk. —Edward Patterson and William Phelan also gave evidence, each saying that Lyons did not make use of bad language.—After deliberating, tho Bench said that if Mr Lyons had been in bed, as he should have been, ho would not havo been before the Court; but the Bench had agreed to dismiss the cose.*