MAGISTERIAL.

Timaru Herald, Volume LXXXI, Issue 12476, 13 September 1904, Page 4

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMARU—MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12th, 1904.

(Before Mr C. A. Wray, S.M.)

DRUNKENNESS AND OBSCENE LANGUAGE.

r Frank 0. Matthews was charged on remand with having been drunk on the night of September 3rd, at Pleasant Point, and with having at the same time used abusive and indecent language. Mr Raymond appeared for accused, who pleaded not guilty. Sergeant Warring gave an outline of the case, and called Constable Barrett, who said that he arrested accused at 10.45 p.m. First saw him about 10 p.m., when he appeared quite drunk, but quiet. Saw him a little later, and warned him to go home. Accused shouted an abusive sentence, and refused to go away. Took no action, but a quarter of an hour later returned and found accused with his son and another man. He was then. abusing witness, in reference to a past Court case. Witness told the other two men that if they could not take accused away he would arrest him. Bad language was used several times by accused, and witness at one time could hear the words fifty yards away, although accused was then in a right-of-way. Told accused he would summon him for the language,, and after further bother arrested ln'm, and handcuffed him.

Mr Raymond cr<:ss-examined at some length as to accused's grievance against witness in connection with his son's arrest some time ago. John Kane, farmer, Pleasant Point, said he saw accused standing more or less drunk at a fence, about 10.30. Only heard some of the language described, and did not make anv complaint to the constable. John Reid, farm-labourer, saw accused about 30- p.m.; he was not drunk. Constable Barrett did not ask witness to try and take him away, and witness did not do so. Came into town with Matthews.

Mr Riymond objected to the imputation that wi'ness had been affected in his evidence lyv coming in with Matthews. To Mr Wray: Did not hear him use abusive language; heard him call Barrett a dog and a dirty cow, when he tried to arrest him for being drunk. Did not think that was abusive language. John Crawford, J.P. at Pleasant Point, said that on the night in question he went ifter 11 o'clock to the Police Station and saw accused lying on a stretcher in the lock-up. The constable moved him, and witness considered he. was in a drunken state. Accused thought he was at home, though. he was sensible enough to "understand what was said to him. Judged br_ his general crenieaiiour tuat~ne~ was- really very drunk. Mr Raymond said that the only important evidence given was that of Constable Barrett, and this was not substantiated by other witnesses and was contradicted by some. The constable was evidently sufficiently doubtful of accused's diunkenness to rail in th? witness Crawford: and his evidence was not proof, because the actions of accused when Crawford saw him were compatible with the .rousing from sleep <*' i: sober man. The germ of the whole matter lay in th; fact that Matthews had a grievance against Barrett, who injudiciously arrested accused's son without a warrant.

P.-O. Matthews, accused, said he remem

bered the circumstances quite well, and was not drunk. Admitted using some language, but did not use the language he was accused of using. To Sergeant Warring : Came to Timaru on that day, and had a few drinks there. Went nut by the train and was at the hotel off and on the rest of the time. Had several drinks there. Was not in the habit of using bad language. Was certainly not drunk at the time, and in the struggle threw Bariett down. G. Beck said he was with accused just before, and left him quite sober. His Worship said it was very clear that the trouble arose through accused's grievance. There could be no doubt entertained as to correctness of the constable's detailed evidence, and he was satisfied accused was drunk. As to the bad language, it was quite likely that with his head full of the grievance and excited by liquor, he would use such terms as lie was accused

of using. The case would be treated as an ordinary one of. drunkenness, and accused would be fined 10s for that offence and £1

for using obscene language. The same accused was then charged on two informations with using profane language in a public place, on the Bth inst. Accused, through Mr Raymond, pleaded not guilty.

John Crawford, J.P. at the Point, said that on the night in question accused came to his house, and coming in, used abominably abusive language, blaming witness for the arrest of his son. Could not say whether he was drunk or sober; he was certainly mad. Poured out a string of abusive language (detailed). Accused then went outside, and used more filthy language on the footpath. Said "-Come out, you sign another warrant." Threatened to cut someone's throat, and to "do for" witness.

To Mr Raymond : Witness remained in his shop, but accused was outside the threshold the latter part of the time. Did not think he was actually drunk. To his Worship: It was a very wet night, and witness could not say whether anyone was about to hear the bad language. Had always known accused before as a good neighbour, but was absolutely frightened of him now. Mr Raymond submitted a legal aspect of the case. It was necessary to prove that there were passers-by and that the language was used in their hearing and sight. Sergeant Warring said it was generally understood to be sufficient if the language was used in a public place, passers-by or no paseers-by. His Worship said that in this case the only thing in favour of accused was that the witness said he was hitherto a good neighbour. He was not sure that accused should not be sent to gaol without the option of a fine. He would, however, take his previous good character into consideration, and inflict a fine of £5. Accused was bound over for six months to keep the peace, in his own recognisance of £2B. ALLEGED INTIMIDATION AND ROBBERY.

J. MeCutclien and J. Little were charged with using threats towards Robert Davidson, thereby procuring from him 225, with intent to steal it.

Mr Raymond appeared for both accused, who pleaded not guilty. Mr White prosecuted, and said there we're three informations, for demanding with menaces, for robbery, and for indecent language. The evidence was substan tially the same in all three, but they were ill laid under different Acts. He pointe; 1 nit that anyone using threats of violence Awards a person, intending to commit robbery, was linb'e to three years' imprisonment. The first two informations would V taken now, the indecent language charge 'ater. He described the occurrences winch 'eil, to the rbarees. It appeared that jjv ' r,<!y »ntl EilHe were strong favourites for v i(- Washdyke Trot, but neither of them

rr.. an outsider. Starboro, coming in first, ;e !y;cnsed Little l<iid a bet with David:i of £2 even mor.ev fin >,lv Ladv. which

an third. Killie criming :-e<:ond. After the "'® f be two accused went to Davidson iid demanded payment. producing the icket on My Lady.. McCutchen said it as his money, and was put on Eillie, and

he wanted totalisator odds. Davidson refused to pay, saying that the money was not on Eiilie, and that .anyway he was not paying out on the second horse. McCutchen squared up to him, and threatened to murder him. This frightened Davidson, who knew accused was a fighting man, and he paid up. Mr White pointed out that the bulk of the evidence would be given by bookmakers, but that that should not make any difference. It had been stated by a judge in a higher court that their trade was legal and that there were men of as much honour among them as in any other business. He called

Robert Davidson, bookmaker, of Christchurch, complainant in the case. He said he and Whitta, his clerk, booked a bet with Little for £2 on My Lady. Gave him a ticket (produced). My Lady finished third, and soon after the race the two accused came up and Little presented the ticket. Witness said it was no good, but McCutchen .said "That's £2, Eiilie," and later, "It's my money, Bob; pay him." Stated he had backed not My Lady, but Eiilie. That horse having run second, he now wanted £2 worth of tote odds, amounting to 225. Refused payment again, whereupon McCutchen squared up and said, "If you don't pay the —— money, you

Cutchen was, handv with his fists, and had punched people before, so he paid up. There were several other persons about. . To Mr Raymond : The others present were not all of the " spieling fraternity." Did not think lie. had met McCutchen for about a year and nine months, and had never seen Little before. The part of the lawn where he stood at the time was frequented, but lie saw no police, and knew it would liaV£ been useless to call for help to them. Knew this, because later, when McCutchen punched another man; they did not come when called. Had never previously seen McCutchen hit anyone. Made ISO complaint to nriy authorities of the robgjiery, and did not sign the informations till McCutchen had been convicted of striking Lachlan. Denied that there had been a meeting of bookmakers since the information for obscene language was laid the night of the races. Under the corcum-

stances, inferred that licensed tried to make out that he had gitfen Little a wrong ticket in the first place.. As the race was iron by an. outsider, witness paid out nothing whatever except- the money demanded by accused. William Whitta said he acted as clerk to last witness at the races. Described the laying of the bet by Little and the subsequent conversation between Little and Davidson. When McCutchen came up and demanded the money, he said to Davidson : " This is an old game of yours, Davidson ; pay him the money." Davidson refused, saying the ticket was on My Lady. McCutchen then stepped back, and sticking his umbrella in the ground, said : "If you don't pay that money, you bastard, I'll fnurder you." Davidson paid lip the second money. The card produced was the record of the betting on that race, and was used because it was raining so hard that the usual book was inconvenient. The two sums of lis, the 22s paid, were totalisator odds on Eillie demanded by McCutchen, although the ticket was on My Lady. This was done sooner than incur the thr&ttened consequence. There are occasional troubles between bookmakers and bettors. It sometimes happened that the bettor said the wrong ticket had'been given him. McCutchen was trying to make out that Little had a bet onEllie, totalisator odds, and that a ticket on My Lady had been passed to him. During tie meeting paid out once or twice on second horses.

Edwin Drapper, bookmaker, was near Davidson when. Little made his bet on the trot. Did cot hear the conversation, but listened to see what horse he backed. Put the money on My Lady, took a ticket, and went awny. Some time after the race saw McCutchen and Davidson talking some distance off. Before he got. Tip to them saw Davidson pay Little some money. Heard nothing said, and saw no more than McCutchen stepping towards Davidson.

To Mr Raymond : Knew McCutchen was interested in Ellie, because it was owned by a friend of his; also that the owner of Ellb backed My Lady. Richard Carroll, teacher of physical culture, said he was near by when the alleged act of intimidation took place. Described the occurrence substantially as the other witnesses had done.

To Mr Raymond : Had never sent McCutchen any challenges to fight. Heard nothing said of totalisator odds, and was a yard off, on Davidson's-right. McCutchen looked its if he was going for Davidson. Arthur Brierly, contractor and bookmaker, Auckland, saw Little make the bet on My Lady for £2. Later saw him present the ticket to Davidson, and the lattei? refused payment. McCutchen then proceeded as described before to compel payment with tlie'threat of murder. Did not hear anything said about tote odds. Under cross-examination witness insisted that he was not a professional bookmaker. inn rip n Int. nf ronnPT .hy . contracting .WI lest heavily at races ; had lost about £SOOO altogether, sometimes as much as £2OO on one race.

Mr Raymond made a lengthy address, deprecating the idea that any such bets as alleged would have, been, made under the circumstances. He challenged Mr White to produce the statement of the judge men-

tioned by him. He did not think any juiy would decide anything on the evidence <;iv"en until they had scanned it very carefully.' He then briefly reviewed the evidence. to .show how incompatible it was with what was likely to occur. It was absolutely unlikely that any bookmaker, surrounded by friends, including a physical culture possessor, should pay up an amount on demand by a man of whose fighting powers he admittedly knew nothing, when he could not be legally required to do so. It was equally unlikely that in any such' puh'ic place McCutchen would have made such a demand. The only possible exportation. was that McCutchen believed that the bet had been made on Eillie by his age - :t. and that Davidson was paying tote odds. / The fact that Davidson paid the correct amount without reference to the marhin? sr.owed that he evidently recognised that tote odds were payable. A

l'nry would have to be convinced that McCutchen had no such belief. The eircum-sta-ces ,of the case, combined with the de'»y in laying the information, pointed to the conclusion that there was a confederacy to avenge for McCutchen's assault'on Lachlan, for which accused had already paid the penalty. As for Little, there was •'bs lutely no evidence against him in any wav.

His Wi.rship said it seemed clear that

the morey was demanded with threats, but it was necessary, before he could come to a propsr decision, to know whether any proof was forthcoming that accused believed his demand was proper.

Mr Raymond said he could call two witnesses for that purpose, and would in any case call tlieni for the obscene language charge. His Worship ordered the case to stand adjourned till Wednesday at 11 a.m. HAPPY LIVES ARE LIVES OF HAPPY LIVING HAPPINESS HAS COME OF LATH TO MANY A TIMARU CITIZEN. In Timaru there is many -a happy homePerhaps you know of some, or, bettei still, it may, be that you rest your head in one yourself. Then again, there is many an unhappy fellow-creature in oui midst. It is not surprising that this should be the case, when one thinks o: the burdens some backe are forced to bear. If yours is not the back that bears the burden, still we think you would be glad to lend a helping hand to lighten another's. Let lis show you how it can be done, and at the same time, tell a story of Timaru life that will prove this aid can easily be given. Mrs Woodward, late of Russell Square, this town, and who is now in Christchurch. states:-^"I used Doan's Backache Kidney Pills for a pain in the small of my back, and they cured me. Mine was not a very bad pain, but it was most unpleasant, and I was extremely glad to get the re medy which would rid me of it. I have also recommended the pills to friends, who bear out my praise of the medicine; they all think it is the best remedy for baclcache and kidney troubles that they have ever come across. I got the pills at Oddie's Pharmacy." Success has brought up many imitations of Doan's Pills, but there is nothing " just as good " as the remedy which Mrs Wood ward recommends, therefore ask for Doan's Backache Kidney Pills, and see that the word " Backache" is in the name.

Doan's Backache Kidney Pills are sold by all chemists and storekeepers, at 3s per box (six boxes 16s 6d), or will be posted on receipt of price by FosteiMcClellan Co., 76 Pitt) street, Sydney, N.S.W. But be sure they are Dona's.