"A BLACKGUARD."

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VII, Issue 2048, 7 September 1920, Page 7

"A BLACKGUARD."

CONDUCTS OWN DEFENCE. A CHARGE OF TRESPASS. Visitors to the Magistrate's Court arc frequently treated to forensic displays X>y prisoners unrepresented by counsel. Of these, none is more persistent in useless cross-examination than James Ke.r, alias Baxter, a cadaverous-looking individual, who made a reappearance in court this morning before Mr 8. E. McCarthy, S.M.— and, incidentally, tried to direct proceedings for the space of some 90 minutes—charged with drunkenness, and, with having, at Sydenham, on August 28, wilfully trespassed upon his wife's property at 48 Barbadoes Street, during the currency of a separation order against him. He pleaded guilty to the first charge and not guilty to the second. Mr J. E. Cuningliam watched the case on behalf of defendant's relatives. Constable J. Cummiiigs stated that, on August- 28, at 11.20 p.m., he found the accused asleep on his wife's premises in Barbadoes Street. Be was then drunk. Witness put him'out on the street and arrested him. Defendant was very drunk at the time anil accused witness of misconduct with his wife.

Mr McCarthy: Is that true? Witness: Yes, sir! Mr McCarthy: I mean is it true that misconduct took place? "Witness: Oh, no! (Laughter.) It is true that he passed that remark. Margaret Ker, wife of the defendant, stated that she lived with her mother in Barbadoes Street, Sydenham. She was separated from her husband. Since the order was made she had nevei* lived with her husband. On August 28 last she was going home from work and saw her husband lying in the garden of her house. She therefore sent for the police and asked tho constable who arrived to remove him, as she had been molested twice sinco the dofendant came out of gaol a fortnight previously. The premises in Barbadoes Street were owned by her mother. The defendant —who considered himself something of a "bush lawyer," conducted a very wordy cross-examina-tion of his wife and showed a most insolent manner—waß frequently admonished by the Magistrate. He endeavoured to prove that he had cohabited with his wife since the iseparation order was made, and that, therefore, the separation order was null and void. He also tried to bring charges of infidelity against his wife, but was clearly warned by Mr McCarthy that he could not introduce that question in the present issue before the Court. Jessie Munro, mother of the previous witness, was subjected to another of the defendant's forensie flights. This closed tho case for the police. Ada Chappel, the first of the defendant's witnesses, stated that she had accompanied Mrs Ker to visit the defendant when he had been in gaol. She considered that Mrs Ker had behaved as if separated from her husband, Isabella Squire stated that she had never seen Ker and his wife together since they had been separated. Defendant had asked her to "arrange a meet" between himself and his wife, but Mrs Ker had refused to go. Defendant, who elected to give his evidence from the dock, and without being sworn, entered upon a long recital about the conduct of his wifo and her drinking habits, which elicited a protest, from Sub-Inspector Dew. The defendant assumed an airy nonchalance in dock, punctuated his speech with careless yawns, and regarded the proceedings generally with insolent indifference.

Mr McCarthy said that the defendant's wife was separated from him; the order had been produced in court, and Mrs Ker had denied any acts of cohabitation. "You have not gone on oath," he added to Ker, "and you have made use of the privilege of making a statement. From behind that privilege, which can suffer no punishment, you have blackguarded your wife, without being yourself liable for the points and penalties of perjury. I am bound to believe your wife's evidence, and disbelieve yours 1 Yon had no right on your wife's premises, and you are convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment."