Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE BOOTMAKERS' TROUBLE.

| ANOTHER POLICE CASE. At the Police Court yesterday morning, before Dr. Giles, R.M., Patrick O'Kano was charged with having on the 18fch July used provoking language towards Leonard Chitty, who therefore prayed that, as he feared a repetition of the language, and as it might tend to provoke a breach of the peace, the defendant should be ordered to find two sureties that he would keep the peace. Mr. Tole appeared for the defendant, and on his application all witnesses were ordered out of court. The complainant then asked that all bootmakers should be ordered out of court, adding that he was a poor man and could not afford to employ a solicitor. His Worship said he had no power to make such an order. The complainant said it had been done in Christchurch, where the court had been crowded with bootmaker.*, who would swear to anything. His Worship said he could not listen to such statements, and directed the complainant to proceed with his case. The complainant in his evidence stated that on the morning of the date in question he was going to work at Foster and Co.'s boot factory in company with a number of others, when he saw the defendant, and crossed over to where he was standing. The defendant said something to him, and he replied, "It is very foolish; you had better go to work instead of loafing about the town on charitable aid." He went on, and the defendant followed him, calling him "scab," and other offensive names. He threatened to give the defendant in charge, and afterwards went to the police, but the Sergeant told him that his best course was to summon the defendant, and he did so. , Cross-examined by Mr. Tole : He (complainant) was employed as a benchman at Foster and Co.'s factory. The reason he had crossed the street to where the defendant stood was to show that he was not frightened ; he crossed purposely to meet the defendant. When he met him, he said, "Where's* the big fellow," alluding to a person who had been with the defendant on the previous night. He had also asked the defendant if it was nob pay-day for the charitable aid. The defendant had not spoken to him that morning before he referred to the charitable aid, but he had on the previous night. Ho had not called the defendant a loafer, but kid said something about him loafing about the town. He bad not poked out his tongue at the defendant, nor had he admitted to anyone that he did so. While conversing with a certain person he had admitted having had a case down South, but he did not know if he had said that he wanted to get one up here. He was perfectly sober at the time, in fact he did not drink. He had said that he lost the case down South, but this was a good one, as O'Kane had no witnesses. He would swear positively that during a conversation with some young lads in Parnell they never mentioned anything about the fellows not liking being called charitable aid loafers. He had asked someone to send O'Kane to him at the factory on Tuesday, and he would " square" the case. O'Kane came and saw him outside the factory, and he might then have said that Foster would not allow him to "square" the case. When going through a street in Parnell on the 18th he had said to a person who was with him : " Are those the pickets and when answered in the affirmative said, they were charitable aid loafers, but did not use bad language. He would not swear that he had not said, " I would like one of them to give me a smack on the ear so that I might get up a case." Mr. Tole : That is enough; I will ask no more questions. " His Worship said there was no use in going any further with the case, as from the complainant's own account he could not succeed. If the language mentioned in the summons had been used by the defendant, he would have been liable to imprisonment without the option of a fine, had he been charged with it as an offence, bub this case was not of that kind. It was simply an application for sureties to keep the peace, the allegation being that the language might be repeated," and might lead to a breach of the peace. Mow, the complainant had been the first to begin the altercation, and he (Dr. Giles) could not see what right he had to interfere and give the defendant advice as to his conduct. Ib was no business of bhe complainant's, and when he accompanied his advice with insulting remarks about charitable aid and loafers, he gave great provocation. Nothing could be more provoking to a man who, for his own reasons, did not choose to work in certain factories, and who relied upon assistance from his friends, to be bold that he was living on charitable aid and loafing. The terms were most insulting. And supposing evidence were brought to prove that the language complained of had been used, there was no reason to believe that the language would be repeated if the complainant left the defendant alone. As he had said before, there was no good proceeding farther; from the plaintiffs own account of what bad taken place he was out of Court. The case would be dismissed.

Mr. Tole said he would have been able to show that the language complained of had not been used. Under all the circumstances he considered himself justified in applying for costs.

Dr. Giles: Yes, costs must be awarded when the man has been trying to get up a case. '

The complainant was accordingly ordered to pay costs amounting to £1 Bs.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH18910729.2.52

Bibliographic details

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8631, 29 July 1891, Page 6

Word Count
981

THE BOOTMAKERS' TROUBLE. New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8631, 29 July 1891, Page 6

THE BOOTMAKERS' TROUBLE. New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8631, 29 July 1891, Page 6