POLICE COURT.

Taranaki Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 6984, 6 February 1886, Page 2

POLICE COURT.

Friday, February s.— Before T. KingJEsq., J.P., H. West™, Esq., J.P., F. A. Carrington, Esq., J.P., Dr. Gibbes, J.P., and G. Brown, Esq., J.P. , USING INSULTING LANGUAGE IN A PUBLIC! PLACE. ■ &.FTBU alt the evidence ia the cross actions, Parris v. Jones, for insulting language, had been taken, Mr. Samuel addressed the Bench. Mr. Samuel said that it was deplorable that a man just after being convicted of an 3ffence should insult the Bench, and should ilso scandalise the proceedings of the Oourt by interjecting such a remark as, "it is a lie," when a witness was giving evidence, md in a loud tone charging one member )f the Bench with Bankruptcy and another with personal animus. No one who had sat upon the Bench, and especially no one who had served this colony with honor for many years, as Mr. Paris had, jould hear such misbehaviour without speaking out and checking it; and unless there was a terrible dearth of public feeling md outspokenness, Mr. Parris would reseive great credit for what he had done. AlB for himself, it made him grieve that he should find wordß like 'that uttered and tho traducer not at once committed to gaol. He hoped the Bench would use its prerogatire, and do its duty to itself and to the community by seeing that those who calumniated its representatives in tho Court itself and assailed fhem outside did not go unpunished.' Mr. Jones' evidence, howover, Mr. Samuel said, did him credit intone respect, and that was where he candidliT admitted that he never for a moment thought Mr. Parris had any intention of striking him;' and' it was in great contrast to tho testimony Of most of his witnesses, who though distant spectators, and • less likely to bo able to give evidence of what oocurred, had no scruple in saying that Mr. Parris apparently intended to assault tho defendaut. It was only natural that when a person spoke, determinedly he should gesticulate (as he himself was then doing.) Thero was no doubt Mr. Parris was much excited after seeing a gross insult given to the Bench ; and on being bailed up by Jones and threatened he would have had uncommon self-control to have acted otherwise than he did. After being a Magistrate for twenty-fivo years it could not but be provoking to bo threatened with a report with the object of having hi.n struck off the roll. Mr. Samuel said ha would not again advert to > the slander on the Justices, but he wished to point out that all'- small places have in their midst certain depraved and bad characters, and this place bad a few— creatures who unlike the defendant wore afraid to speak in the noonday, but go about in holes and corners spreading their vile slanders and doing incalculable harm amongst thoie masses whose minds were either inclined to think evil of others, or who had no minds at all. Such a statement as the one made by the defendant could be made by any criminal, who,on being broughtinto the Court, might turn round and abuse and insult the judges who punished him for his crime, and might charge them with bankruptcy because perhaps their butchers or bakers sent in a claim against them which had to be reduced. Because, forsooth, it was demanded that the amount be reduced and a smaller sum be accepted, were they to be accused of compromising with their creditors, and threatened with being struck off the roll ? Or if one's banker charges ten per cent, on a transaction, and one should go to him and ( say, "My partner, to whom as well as | myself you looked for satisfaction is a man of straw, it's my misfortune to be associated with an impecunious man of this description, this man cannot pay his share, ! surely some allowance should be made me in tho rate of interest"; and if the banker reduces it from ten to eight prr cent., is that person to be charged with compromising -with bisereditorß? It should be remembered the evil of men's hearts comes out of their moutuß, and none but men with bad minds could make such damaging and Blanderous statements. As to Mr. Parris's conduct, lepeated Mr. Samuel, it had been a credit to him as a magistrate, and that gentleman should not be called upon to make any defence. The Bench retired for half-an-hour. On returning, judgment was given to the effect that the Bench had considered the. evidence very carefully, and were of the opinion that the case was a very bad one. It was highly objectionable that on insulting observation should be made in a loud tone of voice while 1 the Court waß sitting, and then after Mr. Parris had told the offender to be cautious that heTiimBolf should be insulted. The chargo made against the two gentlemon on tho Bench was very grave, and should never havo been made. The Court -was determined to vindicate the honor of the Bench, and keep the §eat of justice puro. The defendant in the case Parris v. Jones would be fined £5, with lie, costs. The case Jones v. Parris -would bo ' dismissed, the plaintiff to pay defendant's costs. Fourteen days was the time, given for tho payment of .the" penalties ; in default seven lays' imprisonment with, hard labor. The Court rose.