"MAYOR OF ALBION PLACE"

Evening Star, Issue 18543, 28 January 1924, Page 6

"MAYOR OF ALBION PLACE"

RESPECTABLE GIRL INSULTED. “ ACTION OF A BLACKGUARD.” A neighbors’ quarrel iu Albion place, which is a small thoroughfare off King street, resulted in an elderly man named William Clark being proceeded against by Gertrude Roebuck iu tho Police Court this morning on a charge of having used insulting language towards her, complainant asking that defendant find sureties for keeping tho peace towards her. Mr Irwin appeared for tho complainant, and defendant conducted his own defence.

On being asked if ho was guilty or not guilty, defendant answered emphatically i “Innocent, by all means.” Mr Irwin’s story was to the effect that complainant was a respectable young woman living with her father in King street) at tho corner of Albion place. Defendant had got the idea into his head that the young woman was “ of easy virtue,” and took every opportunity of tolling people so. It was difficult to understand his attitude, and counsel thought that the man was not quite responsible for his actions. “Ho goes to church every morning,” said Mr Irwin, “ and gets drunk every afternoon; which shows that ho is at least a little peculiar.” The Complainant said she had never spoken to tho defendant in her life. On January 18 ho called across the alley, naming her by an opprobrious title, stating that he would got the police to shift her. Witness went out working every day, and no one could say anything against her character. Tho previous evening, while witness was speaking to a Mr Thomas, defendant had made a similar attack on her. Ho insulted her three times subsequently, and her people thought it waa best that she should take steps to stop it. Defendant, who was very deaf, was asked if ho heard what tho witness was saying.

“ Oh, I hear her tolling lies, yes," ho replied. He went on to ask witness if the trouble had not arisen through his charging hor father with having used bad language towards him. Witness denied this, also that she had come and kicked at his door.

Ethel May, widow, corroborated the witness concerning the defendant’s words. He had said that he would get the police to shift complainant, also witness for harI boring her. Witness sent a note to com pla-inant, advising her to see a solicitor and to “ come along to my back door and I’ll tell you all about it.” Cecil George Thomas (carter), another neighbor, also corroborated tho statements. He was speaking to complainant on the night of the 17th when defendant told tho latter to get out of the alley or he’d get the police.” He also called her tho objectionable name previously mentioned. Complainant, said witness, was “ as innocent as anyone I’ve met," and a respectable working girl. Defendant, in the course of a rambling statement, said ho had lived in the alley some five years. Every night ho met complainant going Dp town, Sundays included. The Magistrate: Have you any objection to her going up town? “ Not the slightest,” said witness, adding i “ Over and over again I’ve seen strange mon-ap the right-of-way, and I’ve a big respect for tho place whore I live.” Ho dpniod calling complainant the objectionable name. Mr Irwin : Why did you say you’d- got her shitted? —‘‘Honestly, I couldn’t answer that just now. I must have had tho men on my mind.” Witness added that Mrs May “ had told tho most confounded lies anyone ever heard.” Mr Irwin: You, as Mayor of Albion place, had given instructions to Miss Roebuck, and she had disobeyed your ruling. Is that it? ‘‘ No,” said -witness ; “ I can't honestly say why I said that to her.” He added that he was seventy years of age. “If Mrs May had had any sense,” ho said, ” she would never have urged the woman to come to court, and tho whole thing would havo passed away.” Miss Roebuck’s father had called him filthy names. He (witness) denied being excitable. His Worship said it was quite clear that defendant used the language complained of. Ho was of an excitable nature, and there had been bad blood between him and Roebuck senior. Defendant bad seen men going up tho right-of-way, and without justification had said they had gone to see Miss Roebuck, and had called her an opprobrious name, if not in those exnross terms then by Implication. The complainant was a respectable working girl, and the defendant’s action was that of a blackguard. He would ho convicted and ordered to enter into his own recognisances of £SO for twelve months to be of good behaviour towards Miss Roebuck. He would also Ijftvo to pay solicitor’s fee (£2 2s) and witness’s expenses (10s).