THE LATE CHURCH BOW AT MACRAES.

Otago Witness, Issue 1927, 29 January 1891, Page 13

THE LATE CHURCH BOW AT MACRAES.

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST FATHER DONNELLY.

At the Police Court, at Macraes, on Friday, Edward Donnelly,, of Falmerston, Roman Catholic priest, was charged before Messrs R. Swing and A. D. Bell, J.F's., with committing perjury at Nenthorn on October 22, 1890, by stating on oath at the hearing of an information laid by him against James Hartstonge that the said James Hartstonge was indebted to the Roman Catholic Church, at Macraes Flat, in the sum of £5 10s 9d, for moneys received by him on account of the sale of certain tickets,, the proceeds of .which sale belonged to the Roman Catholic Church at Macraes. „ Mr Rowlatt, of Naseby, appeared for' the informant, and Mr Findlay, of Falmerston, for tbe accused.

Samuel ' M. Dalgliesh, resident; magistrate, stated that he remembered an information heard at Nenthdrn on the 22nd of October last, in which Edward Donnelly was informant, and James Hartstonge, defendant. He produced the information in question, upon which there was a conviction. Edward Donnelly was a witness in support of the information, and was sworn by witness in the usual form. He remembered Edward, Donnelly saying, in crossexamination," It was generally known by the congregation that the defendant owed for the tickets. He owed £5 104 9d for 1 the tickets." He had those -words down in his notes of the case. An objection was raised at that time to that matter being taken in evidence, bat his ruling was that it was not relevant to the charge that was then brought against the defendant.' Mr Rowlatt : What was the time at which he alleged the sum was due ? Witness replied that he could not say definitely what the time wqs, bnt he was under the impression that the complainant in the action referred to some time previous when this amount j was in dispute between them. .„ I Mr Rowltat : Was it not the time upon which the proceedings were carried on ? Witness: No; it could hardly have been, because it referred to some time prior to that, when the dispute arose about the tickets. Mr Bell: You have said that you ruled in court that the statement as to the £5 103 9d was not relevant to the issue that was being tried ? Witness : No. Mr Bell: Would yon consider it right to tell the bench whether, when you arrived at the decision in that case, you in any way took into consideration this statement of Father Donnelly's about these tickets? Witness: No; I was ruled entirely by the evidence that was then before the court with regard to the assault that the defendant had made upon the complainant. Mr Findlay said if the question Mr Bell had asked Mr Dalgliesh did in no way affect his judgment, he should like to know whether any purpose could be served by proceeding further with the case. He did not suppose that his learned friend thought for a moment that a conviction could possibly follow if the stated ment was not relevant, even though it were absolutely false. The very root and basis of such a charge as the present one rested upon the relevancy of that statement, and when Mr Dalgliesh held distinctly that there was no relevancy in it, no possible charge of perjury could arise out of it. He submitted that the charge had collapsed upon the evidence of the last witness. 'V Mr Rowlatt : lam very much surprised at the evidence given just now. It is a question for your Worships to consider. Although the magistrate did not take this question into consideration, it is one be should have taken into

consideration, as it was one relevant to the points ; but lam quite willing to be guided by your Worships' opinion on the matter. This money that was alleged to be .owing for these concert tickets was the basis upon whioh that information was laid. 1 " Mr Findlay: What had the tickets to do with the .assault committed upon Father,Donnelly?..- . -Mr Rowlatt replied that the assault took place over a dispute about the tickets. Mr Bell said the bench were perfectly in accord with what Mr Findlay had stated. 'It was perfectly useless to continue the case. The evidence given by the magistrate was such as no man's evidence could controvert. He alone knew the matters that led him to his decision, and he positively, said that he ruled that the statement with regard to the tickets was irrelevant to the ' issue, and the statement npon *dhich the present information was laid he did nob take into' consideration. The jistjces had oflly to decide whether it was to the interests of justice that the defendant should be sent to a higher court, and they were of opinion that it would be travelling outside of their duty to send him to a higher court. From the evidence they had before them they were con- ■ vinced that no conviction could possibly follow. - The case against the defendant would be dismissed.

A CHARGE OF INSULTING LANGUAGE.

Edward Donnelly was then charged with using insulting language towards James Hartstonge in a public place — to wit, in the schoolroom at Macraes, wherein publio worship was then and there being carried on— by stating that the said James Hartstonge did nothing but malign and calumniate his neighbours, &o , &o. In this case the informant asked Mr Rowlatt if he was going to appear for him, bnt the latter replied in the negative and left the court.

After the information had been read over, Mr Findlay, who appeared for the defendant, said : I wish to call your Worships' attention to what I think a most impudent forgery. You will notice that the information is signed by Mr Hay, and that there has been introduced into it certain words, or rather a second charge, in the handwriting of a different person. Mr Hay has been spoken to abont the matter, and he says those words were not in the information when he signed it. On the information that I have in my hands, and on that in the hands of your Worships, the same words occur, and in both cases the words ars in the handwriting of the prosecutor. If Mr Hay did nob sign both of these documents with the intention of including in them snch a charge as they contain, they are both invalid, and consequently cannot be heard. Mr Hartstonge said he would swear that the words were introduced into the information before Mr Hay signed it. Mr Findlay informed the bench that Mr Hay was to have been in court, but he bad not put in an appearance.

Mr Bell asked Mr Hartstonge if he wrote the words in question before he swore to the information ?

Mr Hartstonge replied in tbe affirmative.

Mr Bell said : Then the bench must presume that he did, as Mr Hay was not present to contradict him.

Mr Findlay pointed out that there was no continuity in the information, and so far as he could see it was not intelligible. It was not clear whether the latter part referred to Father Donnelly or to Mr Haitstobge. He desired their Worships to read tbe information for themselves.

The bench having complied with the request,

Mr Findlay next submitted that the information was bad, and that no conviction could be recorded upon ib. Their Worships would notice that the section of the Act under which the information was laid provided that the abusive language mast be iq a publio place, and within

the hearing of passers-by. It was, however, not alleged in the information that there were any passers-by, or that the abusive language was made use of within the hearing- df anybody Then the most important element in the whole charge had been omitted. ' According to the lact jthe language used must be calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, but there was no statement to that effect in the information. The most vital points', in fact, were absent, from' the information, and the bench could not possibly draw up a conviction upon it. ' ' Mr Hartstonge. said not only was the language calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, but it actually did do so. Mr Bell observed that the information was as bad as it could possibly be. It' did not follow any law. If it was an information for anything ib w£B an information for slander. It was utterly impossible for the Bench to proceed for- a moment upon an information like that which was before th'e«ourt v If the Bench' was to convict upon it, no gaoler, would put it into force, and no conviction recorded in the books could possibly deal with such an information. Mr Hartstonge : It is not my fault. > Mr Bell: I don't know whose ' Fault it is, but it is utterly badj and the Bench cannot have anything to do with it. We won't ■ adjudicate upon it, and neither will any other justices. The information is dismissed. « ■ . A CHARGE OF INSULTING AND THREATENING LANGUAGE. ■ At the conclusion of the la3t case Jameß Hartstonge, the complainant in that, case, was charged with having on the 9th of January used insulting language towards Kerin Claffy, and threatened to take 'his life.' ' ' Mr Findlay, who appeared for the complainant, in opening the case for .the prosecution, said Mr Hartstonge had unfortunately no occupation that was possible to the '.people of > Macraes, and found little else to do but go about and abuse his neighbours. Father Donnelly, as the bench had discovered from the case previously before them, had suffered considerably, as well as many others, owing to the defendant, and Mr Eerin Claffy had repeatedly suffered in a monstrous manner owing to the same man. On the occasion in question the defendant rushed wildly into the complainant's store and threatened him with personal violence, and was only withheld from committing such violence by the earnest solicitations of his wife. Mr Olaffy retreated from his shop, and the defendant then continued bawling outside in the street the language used in the information, and also very much fouler language. He would now ask the bench to deal with defendant in such a way as to prevent him from being the pest and nuisance that he was. He was repeatedly defendant in cases of assault, and something must be done to protect the quiet and peace oil the people of Macraes from him. He did nothing for his living, and was- practically a parasite living on the people there. When learned counsel was making his opening statement he was interrupted by the defendant stating that the complainant wished to withdraw the charge, and as the complainant did not put in an appearance in court he obtained permission from the Bench to go and fetch him. By the time counsel had concluded his address, defendant returned with complainant, and again announced that defendant wished to withdraw the charge. Complainant, who looked somewhat timid, and hung back, also informed tbe bench in a weak voice that he wished the charge withdrawn. \ Mr Findlay then stepped forward and caught the complainant by the shoulder, and as he pulled him up to the table immediately in front of the justices, and away from the proximity of Harstonge, he exclaimed : " I call upon you to give evidence in support of the information." i Mr Claffy, however, again intimated in a

feeble voice that he deßired to withdraw the charge. . ;

Mr Bell said if complainant wished to withdraw the information it had better be withdrawn. It was apparently only a personal matter between himself and the defendant.

Mr Findlay observed that it wp hardly a personal matter. information was brought forward in the interest of all the people in the place. If, however, complainant refused his instructions to him, he was helpless in the matter.

The information was then withdrawn.