John Batger "a merchant in a mess"

 A MERCHANT IN A MESS.

JOHN BATGER'S BAD BEHAVIOR.

What Happened in the Express.

Intense Respectability Saves a Sexual Sinner.

Somewhat of a sensation was caused in the South Island by the appearance in the Christchurch Magistrate's Court on Wednesday of' John Batger, frozen meat, and produce merchant, of Invercargill, on a charge of committing a grossly indecent act in a carriage on the Dunedin and Christchurch express on March 10. Batger is a keen-faced, middle-aged individual, who usually stops at Warner's aristocratic pub. when in Christchurch. He pleaded not guilty through lawyer Donnelly. The prosecution was based mainly on the evidence of guard Frank Vernazoni, who passed through the birdcage occupied by Batger and the young woman when the train was near Glenavy. He discovered the couple in such a position as to leave no doubt in his mind that a grossly indecent act was being committed by both. He remarked to Batger that if he was going to commit an indecent act he might at least draw the curtains. Batger replied, "It's all right, old man," and reaching behind him displayed his tourist ticket. The guard afterwards returned and asked for the ticket to ascertain the name of the traveller, but Batger refused to show it. He also refused to give the name of the lady, and offered the guard a whisky. That functionary was not to be bribed, and threatened to report the libertine, who said, "You will get yourself into trouble as well as me." 

George Walker, news agent, joined the train at Palmerston South. He was passing through the train near Shag Point Junction and looked through the window of the bird-cage, and saw something that

 SHOCKED HIM SOMETHING TERRIBLE.

On returning later, he witnessed more, and the conduct of Batger and the lady scandalised him. Lawyer Donnelly cross-questioned him severely, and witness said he couldn't swear as to what they were actually doing. Counsel for the defence claimed that the evidence of Walker related to an act separate and distinct from that testified to by the guard, and couldn't be heard in support of the charge. Sergeant Johnston contended that the offence was a continuous one. Mr Donnelly urged that where alleged offences were committed, within one hundred miles of each other they should be the subject of two different charges, and evidence pertaining to one couldn't be given in support of the other. The point was important as, the guard's evidence would thus be uncorroborated. Counsel quoted law on the subject, and mentioned the case of Hall, of Timaru, when the prisoner was charged with the murder of his father-in-law. The Court then admitted evidence that Hall had formerly given poison to his wife, but the Court of Appeal subsequently held that such testimony was inadmissable and Hall was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Hargreavcs and Peter. Pender, J's.P., decided to hear the whole of the facts however. For the defence, Donnelly represented that Batger was 

AN EMINENTLY RESPECTABLE MERCHANT 

from prohibited Invcrcargill, where he had a wife and family. He called an. ex-bank manager of Invercargill, now in Christchurch, as to his character. Batger had a son attending Christ's College. A Christchurch grain merchant also testified to Batger's intense respectability. 

John Batger, giving evidence in his own defence, said he had known the young lady ever since she was a small child, and met her on the Palmerston platform. He had been travelling in a first-class smoker, and joined the girl in the bird-cage. They were talking when the close atmosphere of the compartment made her faint. He called the waiter, who brought some soda; and he put a teaspoonful of whisky in her glass. The girl then fainted, and, in assisting her, his actions were open to misinterpretation by the guard. He swore that he had not been guilty of indecency. The lady would be the first to resent it, and she knew nothing of the present proceedings. With regard to the evidence of the news agent, the girl did jump on Batger 's knee and jump off again. She was a lively young lady, and as he had known her since she was four years old, and was old enough to be her father, there was nothing suggestive in the circumstances. Batger didn't look upon the guard's threat as serious, and didn't think he had reported the matter to the stationmaster. Whittaker knew Batger stayed at Warner's when in. Christchurch and had the guard reported the occurrence, Batger thought the stationmaster would have interviewed him (Batger) about it. Accused acknowledged to Sergeant Johnston that he had said to the guard

"WE ARE ALL HUMAN," but meant that the guard was human to place such a deplorable construction on Batger's action in the bird cage. 

Sergt. Johnston: What is the lady's name? 

Mr Donnelly strenuously objected to the question.

Hargreaves, J.P.: It seems peculiar that the lady has not been called.

Mr Donnelly: The prosecution doesn't suggest she is a prostitute. 

Sergt. Johnston: Why do you not call the lady? 

Batger: She is a respectable lady and has no knowledge of this charge. To avoid misconstruction on the motives of accused Mr Donnelly suggested that he would give the name of the woman. 

Sergt, Johnston: What is the lady's name ? 

Accused: Miss Wilson. She lives in Auckland with her family. 

What is her Christian name? — I do not know.

Are you separated from your wife? — Yes.  

What was the reason? — An accident. It was a domestic arrangement. 

Guard Vernazoni, recalled, swore positively to what had taken place. 

The Bench retired, and returning in 12 minutes, found the case against Batger proved, and fined him £10 and costs. It was subsequently discovered that the Bench had no power to impose a fine and after considerable argument with 'counsel, who claimed that previous good character didn't justify stigma of imprisonment, the Bench convicted Batger and discharged him.   -NZ Truth, 25/4/1908.

DIVORCE.

DUNEDIN, this day. Sitting in divorce, Mr. Justice Williams heard the case Batger v. John Batger, wife's petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of misconduct. Defendant is a well-known stock and station agent at Invercargill. Respondent denies the alleged misconduct. The case is being heard in camera.  -Auckland Star, 12/8/1908.

THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

SUPREME COURT. — IN DIVORCE

(Before His Honor Mr Justice William' and a Jury of' Twelve.) BATGER V. BATGER.

Eveline Alexa Batger, of Littlebotrrne, Dunedin (petitioner) v. John Batger, of Invercargill, stock and station agent (respondent). — This was an application for dissolution of marriage on the ground of misconduct, and petitioner asked for such relief as His Honor might deem fit to give. Respondent, in his statement of defence, denied having misconducted himself in a railway carriage on or about March 10 last. Mr J. H. Hosking, K.C., and Mr P. S. K. Macassey appeared on behalf of petitioner, and Mr W. C. MacGregor and Mr Rattray (Invercargill) represented the respondent. 

Mr Hosking: I think my learned friends for the respondent agree with me that the evidence likely to be produced is of such a character that it should not be published. I don't think I am going too far in saying that I think it appears to be one of those cases in which your Honor should exercise the powers given by directing that all details of the proceedings should not be published, and that persons not connected with the case — persons who are here merely out of curiosity — should not be allowed to remain in court. 

His Honor: Does the other side agree to that? 

Mr MacGregor: I concur in that. I think it is right. 

His Honor: From what I can see of the pleadings, that course, I think, would be desirable. 

Mr Hosking: The reporters would like to know if they are at liberty to publish the fact that proceedings are taking place, and to give the names of the parties and the result. 

His Honor: So far as the publication of the report, is concerned, I will make an order, under section 66 of the Act of 1904. The order of the Court is that the publication of any report or account of the evidence in the case is forbidden. Is that what you suggest? 

Mr Hosking: Yes. 

His Honor: That, of course, does not debar the Press publishing the result of the proceedings. You do not suggest that? 

Mr Hosking: No, but the reporters wanted to be on the safe side by getting your Honor's ruling in that direction. The Act, I take it, refers to anything in the nature of evidence.

His Honor: Yes.

Mr Macassey then opened the case, and evidence was called on the petitioner's behalf. The respondent's case was being heard when we went to press.   -Evening Star, 12/8/1908.

John Batger, intensely respectable Invercargill merchant, stock and station agent, etc., etc., this week has figured prominently in the Dunedin Divorce Court, where his missus has been asking for an earthly judge to snap asunder the links that bound her to John on account of John's alleged infidelity. Case, of course, is being heard in camera, and local papers, therefore, have missed making a big splash. John B., it will be remembered, is the intensely respectable person who, a few months back, was caught, on .a Southern express train, fiddling with an allegedly respectable young female. "Intense Respectability" was pleaded for all it was worth, but without avail, as John B. was convicted and discharged, though he narrowly escaped doing a term, in Cleary's hell. Divorce proceedings now explain a good deal.  -NZ Truth, 15/8/1908.

"Truth" was happy to obey the law regarding suppression of the evidence in the case of Batger v Batger, but not so happy with the suggestions from other publications that it had been thwarted in the reporting of its usual material.

Capital has been lately made out of the fact the Magistrate Widdowson, at Dunedin, directed the press, under the pains and penalties of contempt of Court, to suppress, in a recent case heard before him, certain facts which he held to be of an indecent nature. Fearing a fine for contempt of Court, the daily press, notwithstanding its threat to override, because it was plutocratic and powerful enough, the then certain intention of the Legislature, were wise enough in this particular instance, to respect the magisterial mandate, and as a consequence the readers of the daily press were spared what were held to be a nauseating narrative. Baulked or bounced, it does not matter which, from pilfering pence from the public pocket, the dirty, dishonest daily press coolly and audaciously veered round, and while lamenting its own impotency and inability to increase its limited circulation, impudently asserted that Magistrate Widdowson's embargo was a set-back to some journal or other — the daily press are too cowardly to name the offending journal — "which makes a noxious trade of retailing the unsavory details of such proceedings to its readers, to the injury of public morals." Good old public morals! As a matter of real fact, "Truth" heartily applauds the action of Magistrate Widdowson, though at the same time it doubts the legality of his action in proscribing the alleged "improper" evidence. But while applauding the Magistrate, "Truth" nevertheless states its conviction that the proscription of evidence given in a Court of Justice is a dangerous procedure, liable to lead to scandalous abuse and forming a precedent that will gradually lead to the Courts of Justice being closed to public and press. Conscious of the abuses to which magisterial discretion and indiscretion will lead to, if the daily press persist in applauding and upholding the refusal by magistrates of permission to the press to report and even comment on the doings in Courts and the administration of Justice, all "Truth" can say is the "blood shall be on the heads of the Press." We have heard of late a good deal of "The Liberty of the Press." Where, now, is the cry? It's a set-back to the garbage press. Is it? Presuming that by the garbage press, "Truth" is indicated, perhaps it would not be amiss to declare that whenever in the interests of public morality it has been deemed expedient to let the world know how immoral New Zealand is, "Truth" may have offended daily paper good taste, but care has always been exercised, that anything of an offensive nature has been exorcised. Notwithstanding the silly, senseless suggestion of one "respectable" but very meagre and miserable morning paper that the Commissioner of Police is morally afraid to tackle "Truth," no chance has ever been taken. As the law stands it is obeyed, and thus we find Judges of the Supreme Court declaring that mandates from the Bench or not, the press of New Zealand (no exceptions have been made) has always displayed care and even delicacy in handling very ticklish cases.

The brutal, unwarranted and always invited attacks on this journal from the dishonest dailies have served to bring under public notice one remarkable fact. "Truth" is not called upon to defend itself. It is called indecent, but no attempt is ever made by the daily press to prove its ill-grounded assertions. Rather is it to the contrary when "Truth" accuses the plutish press of dishonesty, of unlawfulness, of rottenness generally, it proves to the hilt all it has said, and even to strengthen our case we have borrowed the thunder of the lion, the Attorney-General. This week "Truth" is not called on for a defence. But just to show where, if necessary, this paper can justify its existence, not to mention intrusion into the social, political and moral state of the community, it points a finger of pride to the light it sheds in this issue on the Westport murder, the peculiar and the cruel circumstances of which the daily press has left severely alone.   -NZ Truth, 10/10/1908.

John Batger's name features in further court cases - but only concerning insurance commissions, breach of contract over the sale of oats - fascinating things like that. He died in 1929.