THE GREASING CASE AT THE UPPER HUTT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 705, 4 September 1885, Page 24

THE GREASING CASE AT THE UPPER HUTT.

o At the Resident Magistrate’s Court Wednesday morning, before Mr H. S. Wardell, R.M., John Cudbj, Arthur Richardson, William Brown, aud John McCulloch were charged with assaulting—that is, knocking down and greasing—Edward Irving Wilkie at the Upper Hutt on the 20th ;ult. Mr Gully appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Jellicoe for the defence. The case against Charles Cudby was heard separately, the other defendants leaving the dock. The Court was crowded with spectators eager to learn the circumstances. Edward Irving Wilkie, a young man, said he was a baker residing at the Upper Hutt. About 9 p.m. on the day in question Cudby came to witness’ shop and beckoned him out ; and on witness asking him what he wanted, he replied, “ Oh, nothing ; follow me.” Witness followed him to Ondby’s hotel, and then went into the kitchen with a person named Mclntosh. Shortly after this Cudby, Richardson, Brown and McCulloch entered, closed the door, and formed a mock court, Richardson sitting on the table, and two of the defendants on each side of him. Witness was asked if he was guilty of having said something about Mclntosh, ’ and he replied that he was not guilty. After a short consultation, one of the jury said, “Seize him, police,” and he was then laid hold of bj Brown, McCulloch and Cudby, ancl forced on the floor under the table.. They then attempted to take off his clothes, but owing to hi 3 vigorous resistance were unable

to do so. They then poured the grease out of a tin over his coat and trousers. Witness, after a few minutes, managed to escape, and he was hotly pursued by Cudby to his residence. None of the grease touched his skin. In answer to Mr Jellicoe, witness said he would swear that he had never said anything about Mclntosh regarding a young lady. Richardson WA3 the “ Judge,” and his robe consisted of a white towel tied round his neck. Mclntosh conducted the prosecution, and informed the “ Bench ” of the charge. He never heard a suggestion that he should be let off with a nominal penalty by “ shouting ” drinks all round. The person he first struggled, with was Cudby. He never rolled with Mclntosh into the grease-pau. Iu his opinion, the proceedings were not a joke. He told Cudby that he would not lay an information if an apology was published in the newspapers. As the defendants would not agree to do this, he took the present proceedings. This was ail the evidence for the prosecution. Mr Jellicoe, for the defence, Btated he was prepared to prove that two of the defendants were not at the scene of the assault on the date mentioned in the information. He would call Arthur Richardson, who deposed that he was a butcher at the Upper Hutt. On the night in question he was at Cudby’s Provincial Hotel. Mclntosh was there also, and said that he wanted to speak to complainant, aud suggested that he should be sent for. Cudby went out and returned with Wilkie. They stopped talking iu the passage for some time, till someone suggested that Wilkie should be put upon his trial to ascertain whether he was guilty or not. All ex--cept Cudby then went into the kitchen. Witness was elected judge, his robe consisting of the kitchen towel. One of the other defendants then endeavored to address the court, but they broke down, and started laughing at each other, one of them saying that Wilkie should be discharged on condition that he stood drinks all round. This idea not appearing palatable to the complainant, the latter rushed for the door, where he was intercepted by Mclntosh, who struggled with him, both of them falling to the floor, where they rolled about till they came into collision with the tin of grease, which they upset, a quantity of the contents being spilled over the combatants. During this time witness kept bis seat on the “ bench,” but was powerless to maintain order. Wilkie seemed to enjoy the fun as much as any of them. The noise was so great that the defendant Cudby came to the door and asked what it was all about. The complainant then departed, bub witness did not see Cudby follow him. Cudby did not lay his hands on Wilkie, or the grease, at any part of the time. This evidence was mainly corroborated by Alexander Mclntosh, William Brown, and' John McCulloch. The Bench, in dismissing the information, remarked that it was a strange circumstance that four men should in a witness box swear directly opposite to the statements made on oath by the complainant. Wilful and corrupt perjury was bidden somewhere. Mr Wardell expressed his disgust at the conduct of the defendant aud his witnesses, and it was utterly beyond his comprehension to see four apparently respectable tradesmen, behaving in such an idiotic manner. The fact of dismissing the cases did not prove in the- slightest that one man had committed perjury and four men had spoken the truth. The information would be dismissed without costs. The charges against the other defendants were dismissed, as was also the case against Charles Cudby for permitting riotous conduct in his licensed house.