WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15.

Marlborough Express, Volume V, Issue 236, 18 June 1870, Page 4

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15.

OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE. This was a complaint by Mr H. Dodson against Mr James Sinclair for publicly using offensive and insulting expressions calculated to incite to a breach of the peace. The complainant was represented by Mr Nelson ; and the defendant by Mr Pitt, who pleaded not guilty. Mr Nelson said the case was brought under sub-section 3 of 67, Justices of Peace Act, 1867. The defendant had been applied to for an apology, and a promise that the offence should not be repeated, but none had been received. Henry Dodson deposed that he was Mayor ot Blenheim, and a member of the Borough Council. On the evening of May 31st he was in the Council Chamber presiding at a meeting of the CdhnciT, at which Mr Sinclair was present as a Councillor. During the proceedings had to call him to order, but did not act in other than an impartial manner. Mr Sinclair left the room before the Council rose, but returned afterwards, while he with others were standing by the fire talking, and approached us. I was speaking with the others when he came up and addressed me ; he was in a violent temper, and appeared ruffled. Told him I would rather he would not speak to me again that evening, as we had quite unpleasantness enough. We had no other unpleasantness except what took place in the Council, nor had I any conversation with him. He came close up to me; was not speaking of him in any way, for I saw him enter at the door. He talked more violently than ever, and said he knew who I was, and that I had to slink away from Ballarat for murderous proceedings, or words to that effect. , He added more, but myself and others turned away and left him by himself. It much astonished me, as he fairly hissed through his teeth. Felt it was a great libel, and meant to insult me, conseqnehtly spoke to Mr Nelson the same night about it, instructing him to apply for a withdrawal of the offensive words, and so give him an opportunity to apologise, intending otherwise to bring it before the Court. He has not done so, and it is more in sorrow than in anger that I have taken proceedings. I have been almost afraid to meet him for some time past on account of his provoking language, having frequently used insulting expressions, but not so bad as on this occasion, which I fear will be repeated. Have never given him any occasion, but rather on my guard. Were it repeated it is very likely I should break the peace. By Mr Pitt : Have not spoken to him personally since that evening, but have frequently seen him since. I instructed Mr Nelson to seek an apology ; had he made it in the presence of the same persons who witnessed the insult I wonld have accepted it, but not now—the time for that has passed away. Am not bodily afraid of any man ; nordisposedto takehasty action. Did not call him a blackguard, or speak to him at all. One who was present did say, “Don’t take any notice of such blackguardism,” or words to that effect, but it was not intended for him to hear. Samuel Johnson deposed : Am proprietor of the Express. On the evening of the 31st May the whole of the Councillor's, except Messrs Sinclair and Litchfield, with myself, were standing round the fireplace, after the business of the Council was over, talking about the new Education Bill. At that point Mr Sinclair returned to the room, and came up to the group. Mr Hutcheson and myself made way for him to come up to the fire, Mr Sinclair said, “Dodson, why did you not point out the clause,” referring to the business which had engaged tire Council previously. Mr Dodson replied that he did not want to have anything to say to him further till he knew how to conduct himself. Mr Sinclair spoke in a tone of vexation. It seemed as if he was continuing the argument which had occurred before be left, as if he had never left the room. He replied, “ Was he to be taught how to behave by a Dodson ?” or a similar phrase, adding some further angry words ; and then he said, as nearly as I can recollect, “ You think I don’t know you, I never took a man by the throat and murdered him at Ballarat, and then slunk away to avoid the consequences.” On hearing this I, being the outermost, moved away by the end of the table, and stood to see what would follow. Mr Dodson made no reply, but all at once left the room except Mr Sinclair. Did not hear the word blackguard used ; but, if said aloud, I must have done so. James T. Robinson deposed : Am a Borough Councillor. On 31st May, after the meeting, in the presence of the Mayor and others, Mr Sinclair came in towards us. I was speaking of him. He addressed Mr Dodson in the first instance in a friendly way, who said he did not wish to have any talk with him as they could not agree, or something like that. Could not say about the tone. They had been falling out before. By Mr Pitt: Did not hear Mr Dodson say he was a blackguard ; had ha said it, I must have heard it. Have known him 14 years ; he was only violent in his tongue. He said, “ Is it a Dodson dare speak to me in this way ?” Cannot repeat whatfhe said further exactly; he did not say, “ He was not the man who rolled up the Chinese and burnt their tails at Ballarat, and

then slunk away.” He never mentioned about Chinese; he was “beery.” I cannot tell the exact words he did use, but it was something about Ballarat. By Mr Nelson : It was provoking and insulting, and likely to provoke a breach of the peace if addressed to me. Mr Nelson addressed the Court, applying that defendant should be bound over to keep the peace in his own recognizances. Mr Pitt said the parties never had a word to say to each other, therefore it must be pure conjecture on the part of complainant that his client meant to insult him. There was nothing to show he had just cause for fear. He did not use the words imputed to him, or similar. Although complainant had sworn he bore him no malice, yet he had waited all this time before taking proceedings ; had waited seven days for an apology, and then said he had cause for fear. He did not think the Court could see reasonable cause for binding him over to keep the peace; and he contended that waiting seven days showed complainant bore malice. James Sinclair deposed that on 31st May he was in the Council Chamber with complainant and others, and there were expressions used by him towards me. When coming in I heard my name coupled with the word blackguard used by him. The moment that was uttered went up and addressed him, but did not use the words stated by Mr Johnson. I said, “Are you the person to use the word blackguard to me ?” and, “ Had I ever reason to run or slink away from Ballarat for murdering Chinese or burning hotels.” I was apostrophising myself. Have often seen him since, but not spoken to him. I won’t recognise him, or know him as a friend—have cut him, in fact; nor does he trouble my mind at all. By Mr Nelson : Was not astonished at the course taken. Heard the word blackguard used before approaching the group. Did not refer to the proceedings in the Council, and was greatly excited. He was not speaking about Education, but said, “ Let us go ;” he did not say, “ Don’t address me,” but “ Let us go.” Said what I did for my own , perhaps, and for the benefit of the Councillors. I used the words, and what I meant you had better find out. I decline to answer the question. I will account for what I have done, but not what I intend doing. I think it was better we should not speak to each other. Did not speak to any friend to seek an apology. The Resident Magistrate was sorry, but must consider the evidence before him. It was clear that defendant had used improper language, and calculated to incite to a breach of the peace. His own statement to an extent corroborated that of three respectable witnesses. He did not know what he meant by apostrophising, for if not speaking to plaintiff, he was at all events talking at him. Mr. Dodson had done what any honorable person would have done, and defendant had used very insulting language towards him in that court. He considered the case proved, as few persons would bear to be called a murderer without striking. Mr. Dodson might have brought an ac tion in the Supreme Court but gave him the option of recalling the language : he had now taken the very mildest course possible. Defendant would be bound on his own recognizances in the sum of £25 to keep the peace towards all Her Majesty’s subjects, and Mr Dodson in particular, for 12 months, and to pay costs, £3 17s. The witnesses declined to cake fees.