OBSCENE LANGUAGE.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLV, Issue 56, 7 March 1911, Page 6

OBSCENE LANGUAGE.

PATCHETT V." PETERS

(Before Mr Florance, S.M.)

i Joseph , Peters was proceeded agamstx'at the Magistrate s Court yesterday, on the information of Charles Patchett,: Borough dog-tax collector, on a charge of having used obscene language to the informant on March 2nd in Main Street. . Mr Mills appeared for the informant, and Mr G. Rogers for the defen--. flant. , ... k :The accussed pleaded not guilty. ;, Mr Mills asked that all witnesses he ordered out of Court, which was done. ' ' ■ ii a ■". Charles Patchett, dog tax collector for the Borough of Blenheim, stated that on February 15th he met the defendant, and they had a conversation about a dog. The defendant said that the dog belonged to a man named Bridger. The witness made inquiries, and found no trace ot the whereabouts of Bridger, and on March 2nd he met the defendant on the corner of Freswick Street and Manse Road. He told the defendant that he had not found Bridger, and as the dog- was still in his possession he (the informant) would ■havf to fall back on him for the registration fee. The defendant cony <enoed to swear, and said he was not >'oing to pay for the dog. The witness told the.defendant that there was no need to get in a passion about it; nor to use any incivility. He spoke to-the defendant civilly, and told him that civility Avas cheap, and that he bad been here 34 years and ho defied anyone to say he had been uncivil to them. The defendant then calmed down, and the witness told him that if he 'did not believe him, to go to the Town Clerk, who would give him any information he desired. ■-■; The defendant swore nfeain, and said he would not go to the Town Clerk. The witness then took out his pocket-btook, and asked the ■■"defendant' to give him his name, and he would let the Magistrate decide the issue. The defendant there called the "witness many names, and walked away. He had been-dog tax collector for ten years, and had never had any trouble like this. To Mr Rogers: The defendant did not say that Bridgers was on Cdnolly's milk cart, but told the witness he could take the dog away, and he replied that he had ho jurisdiction over the dog. • He did not call the defendant wa. African nigger. He had never uncivil to anyone, and had. np't told another man that he was an African ape because he was too narrow between the eyes. Mr Rogers admitted two of the words complained of, but denied the others.

Joseph Peters, !the defendant, stated that' the informant came 'to his house in February and asked him to pay the rtegistr&tion fee for a dog there. He told Patchett to take the dog away, and his wife told him the name. 'Patchett met him again on March 2nd, and said "What about registering the dog?" .'. He replied that the dog was no benefit to him, and asked Patchett to take it aAvay. The iriform'ant then said "The law will compel-you to register the dog." He (the defendant) said that he1 could not understand why he should be compelled to register another man's dog, and the informant said "Come down to the "Town Clerk and let him explain all," and added: "Really, a. man can't talk to you, you are as ignorant as a West African nigger. He then asked the witness to give him his Christian name, and-,-he replied; "go and find out." He also swore at the informant, but did not use the words complained of in the information. His nephew, was with.him! at the time. To Mr Mills: Patchetfc approached him civilly, and asked him to go and see the Town Clerk, but he refused. He was not angry with the informant. He had told his brothers what the informant had called him, but had not had any conversation with his nephew concerning this charge. He did not raise his voice when speaking to the informant. He did not see Patchett pass his place on Friday last after he had received the summons.

Solomon Peters,. a boy 10 years ■if age, nephew of the defendant, said that the informant calloc] his uncle an uncivilised African nigger.

To Mr Mills: He had not discussed th© case with his uncle, and his uncle had only told him to come with him to the Court. No one told him Avhy his uncle was in court. He heard him use the bad language.

William Ramsay gave evidence to the offoct that the informant had called him an African ape. He admitted to Mr Mills that there was feeling between the informant and himself, but said it emanated from the informant.

His Worship, after hearing the evidence, said that this sort of thing had certainly to be denounced by all right-thinking people. The question for -■> the Court to consider was whether there was provocation to warrant the language complained of. He did not think there was any provocation, and the defendant would be fined £1, with 7s costs.