MOTUPIKO SCHOOL TROUBLES.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XXXII, Issue 89, 23 April 1898, Page 2

MOTUPIKO SCHOOL TROUBLES.

THE CHAIEMAN bF i'HE COMMIT^' • J TEE AND THE TE.4 CHER. 'Ly-

CHARGE OF PROVOKING LANGUAGE. THE TREE-CUTTING INCIDENT. . THE CASeTiSMISSEDThe hearing of tho case, in which William Gibbs, oharman of tbo Motnpiko School Committee, asked to have Harrison' Evans, teacher of the Motupiko: school, bound over to keep tbe peace, for using provoking and insulting language to complainant on the occasion of the recent treetrimming episode, occupied the Magistrate's Conrt till 20 minutes to six last . evening. The following additional evidence , was taken after the Mail went to press yesterday :— ' In the course of furtbercross-exaniination by Mr Maginnity the complainant said he had shown Quinney a memoiandom he bad made of the words used by defendant, but ho did not remember whether he showed it to Stratford. Ho had talked the case over with theso men. Re-examined by Mr Harper : He considered that the Committee had a right to go on the teacher's premises at any time, without asking the-Board's permission. William Frederick Quinney, son-in-law ot the last witness, deposed to assisting to trim the trees ai the direction of the Committee. Defendant came out half an hour after they started aDd called Gibba "an old villain of a rogue " and charged him wiih stealing the trimmings. Defendant asked who gave thc instructions and Gibbs answered that "he woe boss here to-day." Defendant said it was stealing and that if lhere was any law in the land he would have justice. He said it was a thievish action and worse tban highway robberv. W itness out about 10ft off the top of ono of tbe poplar trees. He asked defendant to stand out.of the way when the top of the tree wns about to lall, but le (defendant) said it was his property, and that he would do as be liked. He said Gibbs was afraid to hit bim because he was a coward and that be was r.ot man enough to fight him. Defendant also said it would be of no use for Gibbs lo bring the matter into Court as the Magistrate would decide against bim. Gibbs told him to go and attend to his duties. Defendant told Gibbs that he would stay hero another three yeara on purpose to vex and annoy him. ' By Mr Magint.ity : Gibbs did not show witness a memoranda of the wordß ÜBed. He did not hear everything that transpired. Defendant said that both the Chairman of the Education Board and Mr Phillips agreed with him. He did not hear defendant mention any name when he referred to the Magistrate. Stratford told witocßS of a telegram sent by the Secretary of the Education Board to defendant about the trimming ollthe trees. Defendant said "it was all done for that . woman at tho store," Witnesß was on the Bide of the Gibbs' party, tut he had not signed the petition for defendant's removal from the school George Stratford, labourer, who carted away the tree trimmings, remembered Evans coming out and sayinp, " that old rogue of a villain of a Gibbs ia there too," when he came out again he said it was a " mean, dirty aclion ;" that ii wbb stealing, and worse than highway robbery. When Gibbs asked him to move out of the wav of tho top of the poplar tree, defendant refused to move, and Baid that if they broke his neck thfy ought to have tlieir own stretahed. Defendant afterwards told Gibbs that be (Ihe latter) was afraid to bit him, and that he was a coward ; also tbat he had seen one grey head lo the grave and would see another yet. He said he would have justice if there was any law in the land, and that he was sure the magistrate would not give a case against him. He also said that he would do everything he could to annoy Gibb=. Defendant put his face olose to Gibbs' and asked him to hit him. Witness had talked the matter over with Gibbs, and the latter knew pretty well what he (witness) was going to eay to-day. Wit-* ness was related to Quinney, the last witness. He received his instructions to trim lhe trees in writing from the Committee. When the telegram from the Education Board arrived, he was removing the branches from the road. When defendant icferred to the magistrate, he did not mention any name. Leonaid Thomson, assistant in Palmer's store at Motupiko, stated that he was on the store premises on the occasion of tbe tree-cutting operations. He heard defendant say : "Just look at that old Gibbsj the old villain of*a rogue , yon are spoiling the trees, and you know it is the wrong time of the year to out them* It is nothing else but a thievish action. Yon are a lot of rogues and thieves ; you will have to see to the bottom of this ; I will have justice if there is any law in the land ; I wiU insult you all I can." Defendant came out a number of times, but witness waa not thero all the time, and heard nothing beyond wbat he had just stated. By Mr Maginnity : Witness took the pick-handles to the school on the occasion of the Committee election last year. He had talked with Gibbs on the subject of this case. This closed the complainant's case. Mr Maginnity submitted that it was doubtful whether there was a case to answer. An order suoh as complainant asked for was only made in extreme cases, and when it was shown that the application was made without malice. There was also a technioal objection to be raised, and he quoted an authority to show that the words " publicly and to the common annoyance of her Majesty s subjects " should form part of the information. With regard to tho defendant's status as the occupant of the school house, he quoted from the decision of Mr Justice Edwards in the case of the Marlborough Education Board v. the Blenheim School Committee to prove that the Edncation Board had the general control of all educational matters, and tbat the Committee had no authority to go upon school premises, of whioh the teacher had possession as a tenant of the Board, Moreover, on the merits, he contended tbat a sufficient case to warrant the making of the order had not been made out. The strained relation between the parties was a matter of notoriety, and evidence could be produced to show that complainant had stated that he would " lay low " for defendant when he got the opportunity. The witnesses had acknowledged having discussed the case tefore coming to Conrt, and it was evident that they had planned what might almost be termed aconspiracy in the pursuance of their desire to \ent their spite on an innocent man. His Worship said that he did not think any of the points raised by Mr Maginnity need be taken into account, with tbe exception of tbe questioh of the teacher's tonure of tho sohool house. Mr Harper, for the complainant, here submitted that the defendant, bsing merely an occupant on sufferance, had no property in anything on the sohool ground. His Worship/proceeding togivejudg- ; ment, said there was no necessity to ask i Mr Maginnity to oall evidence for the defence. Under tho oiroumstances already disolosed he could not grant tho ; order asked for. It appeared from com. plainant's own evidonce that he, with others, went without right on to the premises of defendant. As trespassers they 1 were asked by defendant to name their authority for cutting the trees, bnt no answer was returned save that of Gibbs who said "I am boss here to-day.' 1 Stratford, who had not replied when asked for his authority was aware that a telegram bad been sent by the 'secretary of the Education Board on a previous ocoa* sion, forbidding the cutting of .the trees, and he therefore knew that he was en- * gaged in an illegal action. The complainant said that he waa not aware of thiß telegram, but whether he was aware of it or not, tho law remained the same. An Englishman's house was Mb castle, and nobody bad a right to trespass on and take property in another's oharge whether Bnch property belonged to that person or not ; nothing was dearer than that. He would not go into the question of defendant's title to the trees; if they were not his, they wero in his possession. It - was not strange that defendant should havo ajpl.'ed the terms "thieves and robbers " to the complainant and those with him. Had the case boon reversed and had defendant been doing tbe same thing with ' complainant s property, the latter would" ' probably not only nave called defendant a ' thief and a cobber, bnt would most likely have given him into the custody of the * : •" police. The complainant, who in a high- L.% handed and inßofent manner was inteiy •'X-L-'J fering with the property of another was'i;Y : B undoubtedly abused by the person whom Y' -•';";? he himself abusing, , ! but he was thd^K^ wrong-doer and had only himself t&.^s' i M blame; The case was diamiss'ed withY%>6-S eoats. His Worship added that the cir^lsl oumatapceswere hot likely to-wise agairiM^M .-He was perfeotly satisfied that defen-Mtwllg wonld not use provoking .ftndYlnsultmgjM*^ language with the objeOTof'irov^tlng-'ai/^^p breaoh of tie peace ,•* there waslSs^i®:|^S ,l<^t likelihood ■01- :^fViiM^^^^

Li- •". p^btrooktion* ' the ' defendant had * used : vefa-ong language, bat ib was language ;'\' that was only* natural under the ciroum-,.->Btano3S.. It was the usual thing for a -', person who' took what did not belong to <.' him to be caUed a thief. . -He did not ■ think there > was any likelihood of the words complained of being repeated, unless the provocation arose again, whioh was not probable. . The.jfoHowing were the. costs aUowed against the complainant :— Expenses of seven" witnesses, .£8 8s 6d, made up as . . foßbws ;— R. H. Coleman £1 14s ld ; A E.Coleman, ,31 ,14s ld 5 S. EUis (seoretary of ithe Education Board) 10s; C. Frater £l 6s ld ; P. Mead &\ 2s Id ; „T- Mead .61 2s ld ;R. Mead £1 ; Court fees 16s, and counsel's fee £1 ls, making . a total of ,£lO 5s 6d. Mr Maginnity* ap- ■ plied for the defendant's expenses, bat , His Worship said that whilst he was disposed to grant the application (as the defondant had been put to needless expense in defending the action) he had no power to do 80.: |