Police Court

Southland Times, Issue 11298, 2 November 1889, Page 3

Police Court

Thursday, 31st October. (Before H". McCulloch, Esq., R.M.) DISTURBANCE IN* A RAILWAY CARRIAGE. 1 John McEachran and William Burns were charged with having on the 12th October behaved in a violent manner to the annoyance of others in a railway carriage. Burns, individually, was further charged (1) with using insulting language towards the guard, and (2) with using obscene language within the hearing of the other passengers.— Mr Finn appeared for the defendant Burns, and said he admitted the first and second charges but pleaded great provocation. Counsel thought the third charge should.be withdrawn as it and the second really referred to one offence. — Alexander Calder, farmer at Thornbury, deposed that he left town on the 12th inst. by the 4.15 p.m. train for Riverton. The two defendants were in the same carriage and shortly after the train left town they got up an argument and Burns jumped up from his seat and struck JMcftachran. Before doing so Burns warned McEachran not to bother him about something or another as he might lose hi 3 temper. After the first blow Burns took off his coat and vest and struck McEachran again, but the latter did not return the blow. The guard, Shepherd, then came in and said he would not have that sort of thing in the carriage. ;- Burns said that if the guard caught him by the throat as McEachran had, he would strike him too. There ■were a good many other persons in the carriages, including several ladies, who were considerably frightened. The language used was not very good. By Mr Finn : The two had a hold of each other in a corner of the carriage at one time. Witness did not see McEachran touch Burns before the latter struck him.— T. H. Cupples gave corroborative evidence. When witness first noticed them the two were in grips. They caught each other about the same time, and before any blow was struck.— Thomas Hodgkinson deposed that he heard Burns challenge McEachran to get up and fight him for a " fiver," and to put down a fiver. McEachran took no notice of him. Burns hit McEachran twice, and then the latter rose from his seat and got a hold of him. The two staggered to the corner of the carriage when Burns got the other's head tinder his arm and him eight or nine times, causing the blood to spurt from his nose, andaltogether making awful figures of themselves. Both had had liquor, but they were not drunk— they were "fresh." Witness informeii the guard when the train got to LiriiTs Bridge. -^John Shepherd, railway guard, deposed that when ne entered the Carriage at; Liad's Bridge he saw that

McEachran'a face was cut and smeared with blood and Gkere was blood on the floor ot the carriage. In reply to a question from witness, Burns said it was only a . family quarrel and told witness that if he inter.fered he would strike him too, " b y quick." Burns behaved in a very offensive manner, used obscene language, and would have struck witness had not some of the passengers interfered. The man McEachran was very quiet. — This was the case for the prosecution. — William Burns, one of the defendants, deposed that he had received great provocation from McEachran, who had made insulting insinuations regarding a young lady, and had caught defendant in such a way as to make it necessary that he should strike him once or twice to get free.— John McEachran. the other defendant, denied having made the insulting remark about the young lady, and said he had not caught Burns in the manner he had described. He used no bad language.— His Worship said it seemed to him that a very disgraceful scene had taken place in the carriage, a scene that was positively disgusting. It would be shameful if when people sent their wives and families by train they should be exposed to witnessing such conduct. He could not see that McEachran was at all to blame in the matter, and the charge against him would be dismissed. For the violent conduct Burns would be fined 50a ; and for the insulting language to the guard a similar amount ; the other charge would be dismissed because it might have been the same language ; costs, L 3 15s ; fourteen days imprisonment in default. ' ■■■■•' BYLAW CASES. Three residents of Invercargill were fined in the usual amounts for permitting cows to wander.