Quarrelsome Neighbors.
Margaret Cuttle was charged by Mary Tubman with using insulting language to her, and complainant therefore asked that defendant be bound over to keep the peace. Mr Calvert appeared for complainant; Mr Sim for defendant. — Complainant said that she had resided at South Dunedin for two years. Defendant came to reside near witness some two months ago. A day or two ago defendant was throwing stones at witness’s fowls and used most abusive language, calling witness vile names. Witness gave defendant no provocation whatever, but had been greatly annoyed of late by her (defendant’s) conduct. — Evidence was given by several others, after which Mr Sim urged that complainant was the aggressor, and was in every way to blame for the whole affair. — Defendant and a number of witnesses gave evidence, after which the Bench dismissed the case, as it appeared to be simply a neighbors’ quarrel. -Evening Star, 5/11/1889.
Late Advertisements
WANTED Known, that Margaret Cuttle who appeared at Court yesterday is not wife of Cuttle, furniture dealer. -Evening Star, 6/11/1889.
An 1895 court case in which Margaret was mentioned concerned her husband and brother in law assaulting her father at the Rainbow Hotel in King st. From this we find her maiden name - Margaret Jennings.
Damaging Property and Refusing to quit a Licensed House.
— Margaret Cuttle was charged that, on the 28th inst. at Anderson's' Bay road, she did damage to a window to the extent of 15s, the property of Francis Gaffney. She was further charged with having refused to leave the licensed premises known as the Bay View Hotel, kept by Mr Gaffney, — Mr Hanlon appeared for accused, and it having been pointed out by Sergeant O'Neill that, as it was a, breach of the Licensing Act, the case required to be heard by the stipendiary magistrate, the charges were remanded to next Thursday, Mr Hanlon offering no objection. -Otago Daily Times, 2/2/1899.
Four cases were set down for hearing at the Police Court this morning. A first offender was fined 5s for drunkenness, in default twenty-four hours' imprisonment. Mary McKegny, an old offender, similarly charged, was gent to gaol for two mouths. Margaret Cuttle, charged with using obscene language in Ashers right-of-way on Saturday night, was defended by Mr Hay. After evidence and legal argument, the Bench (Messrs J. Duthie and D. Larnach, J.P.s) decided to convict, but held over sentence until hearing a similar charge against Annie Richmond. In the first case Mr Hay unsuccessfully argued that the right-of-way was not a public place, and on the charge against the woman Richmond being called, counsel said that accused would admit using the language, but would plead not guilty to using it in a public place. He intended to have his point decided by the Supreme Court. The Bench said that they would convict in both cases, and fine each accused 40s, or a month’s imprisonment. -Evening Star, 12/12/1904.
The above account is just one of many, over the years, in which Margaret Cuttle is described as being drunk, disorderly, or both.
CITY POLICE COURT.
(Before C. C. Graham, Esq., S.M.) Drunkenness. — A first offender was fined 10s, or forty-eight hours and another 5s, with 2s costs.
Trespass. — Elisa Jennings and Margaret Cuttle were charged with being by night on the premises of Mr Macarthur, Russell street, without lawful excuse. — The former, who pleaded guilty, was dismissed with a caution, on condition that she took out a prohibition order against herself. The other defendant, who pleaded not guilty, was defended by Mr Irwin, and was dealt with in the same manner. -Evening Star, 28/1/1907.
DAUGHTER VERSUS MOTHER.
At the Police Court this morning Margaret Cuttle was charged with beating her daughter, Nellie Cuttle, with undue severity. — Sub-inspector Norwood said that the charge was laid under the Children’s Protection Act, 1890, section 3. Mr Irwin appeared for Mrs Cuttle.
Nellie Cuttle, fourteen years of age, stated that about April 13 or 14 she had been sent a message to Mrs Richmond (her aunt) and detained there. On returning late her mother had said: “Come inside and I’ll give you what you don’t want.” She had then been beaten for about an hour with a supplejack across the body, head, and arms. Her breast and arms were much bruised, and there were lumps on her head. That evening, after washing up the dishes, she left the house on her sister’s advice, and went to Miss Davis, in Stafford street. From there she had been brought home by her mother, her hair had been cut off and she had been dressed in boy’s clothes, besides which she received another beating. Her mother also brought the butcher’s boy to look at her, and said: “What do you think of Tommy?” The second beating was inflicted with a strap, and lasted about half an hour. She again ran away to Miss Davis, and subsequently went to the Salvation Army Home.
To Mr Irwin: Although her father was kind to her, she had not informed either him or her brother as to what had taken place. When she had been taken back from Miss Davis’s house, her aunt had broken in the door, and she had been dragged out by the hair.
Esther Davis, residing at 98 Maryhill terrace, in giving evidence, denied Mr Irwin’s suggestion that the child had been harbored in what was practically a house of ill-fame. She also stated that the girl's arms and legs were black and blue and swollen.
The matron of the Salvation Army Home stated that, in consequence of a telephone message, she went to a house in Maitland street and took the girl away. That was on April 20. There were then no marks of a beating, except that the right arm was black from the elbow to the wrist. When the child first came to the Home she was very nervous, and started every time she was spoken to.
Mr Irwin submitted that the case must be dismissed, as the only evidence of illtreatment was that given by the last witness, and the particular bruise might be otherwise accounted for. The girl was unruly, and had gone to a house which her mother did not approve of. If she had been allowed to remain she might have turned out as bad as those who harbored her. It was these people who had taught the girl the story which she had just told to the Court. Mrs Cuttle was anxious to get her daughter info an orphanage, as she was uncontrollable. -Evening Star, 4/6/1907.
Alleged Cruelty.
DUNEDIN, June 4.
Margaret Cuttle was charged at the Police Court with beating her daughter Nellie, aged fourteen with undue severity. The complainant stated that she had been beaten for an hour with a supplejack across the body and arms, and a second beating with a strap lasted about half an hour. The defence was that the girl was punished, but not excessively for going to houses improperly conducted. The mother had dressed the girl in boys clothing in order to prevent her going to such places. Owing to conflicting evidence the Magistrate dismissed the case, it being understood that the Salvation Army would look after the girl in the meantime. -Wanganui Herald, 5/6/1907.
At the Police Court this morning, Margaret Cuttle was charged with having been drunk and disorderly, and with having resisted a constable whilst he executed his duty. The evidence showed that the constable had heard her singing, had gone over to silence the music, had been talked at, and had been slapped on the face and bitten on the hand. Defendant pleaded guilty to the first charge, but said she could not have bitten the constable, because she had no teeth. Here the constable looked ruefully at his hand. Sub-inspector Phair said that in consequence of complaints about the language heard in the woman's house the police had been compelled to go to the house on occasions. On the first charge she was fined 40s or fourteen days' imprisonment; on the second 60s or one month's imprisonment. She went to gaol. -Evening Star, 26/10/1909.
MACLAGGAN-STREET MELEE
ISABELLA'S ALLEGED INCITEMENT.
Mrs Cuttle's Cumbrous Capers.
Commotion Caused by the Collapse of Capacious Carissima Cuttle.
The peaceful and holy calm of Maclaggan-street, in the city of Dunedin, was rudely shattered, so to speak, on the 25th of last month, when a fair and fragile lady, Margaret Cuttle, who weighs some seventeen stone, and was carrying home a large cargo of "swankey," refused Constable Mullen's kind invitation to a cab ride to the police station. Margaret so far forgot that she was a lady as to lie down in the street, and, as the constable did not have a steam crane handy, he could not place her in the cab. A big crowd soon gathered round the fair-haired constable and his lovely burden, and began to offer Dinnie's man gratuitous, abusive and unnecessary advice, and also to hustle him, until two of his fellow policemen materialised and conveyed the extensive one to the station.
Constable Mullen thought that in the crowd he saw the fair face of Isabella Jolly, and that Isabella had called out
TO DUNEDIN'S UNWASHED, the following unladylike words, "Go on, boys, be brave, she's a woman, boys," thus assisting the aforesaid unwashed in a disgraceful disturbance. The police, therefore, sent; Bella a polite little invitation on blue paper, to see Magistrate Bartholomew on Friday last about a charge of "inciting." Bella accepted, and brought along Lawyer Irwin to see that no undue advantage was taken of her innocence. She denied having ever used the objectionable words. Sub-Inspector Phair put on his folders, and looked after the police interests.
Constable Mullen said he was on duty in Maclaggan-street on October 25th. His attention was attracted by Margaret Cuttle, who was drunk and disorderly. He arrested Margaret, and a crowd gathered. He noticed accused ibn the crowd, and heard her say, "Go on, boys,
BE BRAVE! BE BRAVE!" The effect of this was that some hoodlums hustled him, and caused the prisoner to resist. He was unable to remove the prisoner, and he blew his whistle. A bottle was thrown, and it struck him on the head, and his whistle was pulled out of his mouth. He noticed accused drop a bottle of beer on the ground when she called out. Witness said to her, "I'll have you and the bottle later." He had to give up, as the prisoner Cuttle was a big woman, weighing some seventeen stone.
Mr Irwin: That's not our fault.
Continuing, witness said Sergt. Eccles and Constable Dunford came and assisted him five minutes later. He could not say from which direction the bottle came.
To Mr Irwin: Other women were making use of expressions, and some were closer than accused. He had no idea how many women were there. They would be about three yards away.
SOME HOODLUMS CAME closer than that.
If Mr Moir, the saddler, says that he got between them and you to prevent them from molesting you, would you say he was wrong? — I did not see him.
He would say that there were no people nearer to him than this accused was. He left Mrs Cuttle lying on the ground whilst he kept the crowd back. He never pushed the accused back. She only called out once. Others in the crowd sung out on him to let Mrs Cuttle go. Mrs Cuttle was singing out and making remarks. She was using indecent language. Mrs Cuttle was charged with assault, drunkenness, and resisting. It was not when he had hold of Mrs Cuttle that the people cried out, ''Let her go." This woman was the only one he identified.
She did not use the words to Mrs Cuttle? — These are the words she used.
Oh, but Mrs Cuttle isn't a boy. Did these words incite Mrs Cuttle to resist? — I could not say she resisted.
Re-examined: Mrs Cuttle was resisting all the time.
Mr Irwin: Well, that's directly opposite to what he has just said.
The Sub-Inspector: From the time she used the words, did Mrs Cuttle continue to resist?
Witness: Yes.
The Sub: Well, why didn't you say so?
Mr Bartholomew: What was Cuttle's
EXACT PHYSICAL POSITION after the words were used?"
She was on the ground.
What did you do then? - I whistled.
And then she continued on the ground? -Yes.
The Sub-Inspector: Was it after the words were used you blow your whistle? — Yes.
How long after? — A minute.
During this time had you made any effort to put Cuttle in the cab — Yes.
Robert Fraser, cab proprietor, said that, on the 25th of October, he saw the constable in Maclaggan-street about between 9 and, 10 p.m. The constable was in charge of a drunk woman on the edge of the footpath. There was a good crowd round, but they were not peaceable, and were making use of remarks. He saw accused there; she was at the back of the crowd. When he went to assist the constable, accused mistook him for another cabby, and said: "Well, you ought to do that, Plimister, remember your own sister." Witness saw the constable hit by a bottle, and it came from accused's direction. Accused was making herself conspicuous. The constable had the prisoner in charge when he blew the whistle; this was a good while after witness arrived. He thought it would require three or four constables to handle Cuttle. She did not require to resist,
HER WEIGHT WOULD DO IT. Accused had come round one night with a subpoena, and said, "You did not see me throw the bottle." She referred also so the case, but he could not remember what she said. Witness did not answer, as he wanted to get rid of her.
To Lawyer Irwin: She came along to serve him with a subpoena. He thought she wanted him to give evidence that she had not thrown the bottle.
Sergeant Eccles gave evidence as to assisting the constable to arrest Mrs Cuttle. He did not see accused there in the crowd. Later, he saw her in Walker street with five men, later ('about midnight) in front of the Post Office with one man. She was intoxicated then, and, when witness asked her if she was in Maclaggan-street that night, she denied it.
Mr Irwin said the defence was a denial that accused used the words at all. The defendant, although in the crowd, did not interfere at all. The constable had admitted that Cuttle did not resist after the words were used. He submitted there was no case to answer.
Mr Bartholomew decided to hear the evidence for the defence.
Mary Wearne, who
STAYS IN MACLAGGAN-STREET, said she was not acquainted with accused. She remembered the night of the scene. She saw accused there, but she was not taking any part in the proceedings, and she was not calling out. Witness would have noticed her if she had. The bottle was thrown from the back.
To the Sub-Inspector: Witness was one of the first on the scene. She did not see accused arrive there. It was before the whistle was blown that she saw accused arrive. It was Mrs Cuttle's daughter and sister who were singing out. Witness was between the accused and the constable, side on to the accused. Witness was paying most attention to the constable. It was not possible for accused to use the language without witness noticing, although she was watching the constable. -NZ Truth, 27/11/1909.
RUSSELL-STREET RELATIONS.
A Keg and its Consequences.
On Thursday week Thomas Henry Cuttle, husband of Margaret Cuttle, the extensive lady who raised an insurrection in Maclagan-street in the saintly city of Dunedin some weeks ago, got in a ten-gallon cask of beer as his Christmas present from his employers, a local brewery firm. The wife of Thomas' "buzzim" invited her sister Annie, who presented her hand and heart to James Richmond, butcher, some few moons or years ago, to gaze upon the noble 10-gallon keg perched upon its classic pedestal. Both the ladies succumbed to the influence of the spectacle, and they invited one of the male species in the shape of James Richmond, lawful wedded wage-earner for Annie, to partake of the fluid, and the result was disaster and a regular Donnybrook Fair.
Thomas Henry Cuttle, who is no relation of Dickens' Captain Cuttle, but who is husband of the extensive lady referred to, came home to his house and found the ladies in bed "under the influence." Thomas had to make his own tea, and when James blew in later, things were what Comrade Dowdall would call, "only middlin'."
Constable De la Cour of the big chest and youthful countenance, was patrolling his round on the Thursday night of beer and blood at the unearthly and unpresbyterian hour of 11.13 in Russell-Street, when he "scented the battle from afar," and upon investigation found that things in the "Maison de Cuttle" were not as they should be. The subsequent investigations of the wrestler "'John" caused Thomas Henry to happen along and see Magistrate Bartholomew about a charge of assaulting James Richmond with intent to cause bodily harm, on Monday morning last.
Thomas Henry duly eventuated, and brought the dapper Lawyer Hawkins along to plead innocence and other things. Sub-Inspector Phair gathered his papers together and said that, with the beak's permission, he would reduce the charge to one of common assault. This was agreed to.
James Richmond said he was brother-in-law of accused and stayed in Maclagan-street. On the Thursday night he went to Thomas' house in Russell-street to bring home his wife about 7 p.m. Thomas was in the passage and invited him in to have a drink. They had several beers in medium glasses. He couldn't say how many beers he had. Thomas had a cask of it. After surrounding the beer a row started, but he couldn't say how it started and who it was between. Witness was too drunk. Thomas hit him over the head with a stick twice and his wife took him away. He didn't remember much about the occurrence. There had been no previous ill-feeling. Didn't remember if he gave Thomas any provocation.
To Mr Hawkins: Witness was a butcher out of work and wasn't sacked by his last employer. He had been convicted for drunk and disorderly, drunk, assaulting the police, obscene language, stone-throwing and indecent language. He didn't think himself drunk that night.
Mr Hawkins: Perhaps you wanted someone to tell you were drunk.
Witness added that he might have fallen down the stairs in trying to get his wife away. He wasn't drinking with his wife and Mrs Cuttle. They were sitting on the bed, and he didn't know if there was any drink in the bedroom.
Re-examined: He was positive he was hit with a stick. He had been unwilling to give the police any information and didn't want to come to court, but that wasn't his reason for giving the previous evidence. It wasn't because he wanted to cover up what Cuttle did that he was giving the evidence.
Annie Richmond, wife of James, said she had been with her sister since the previous night (Wednesday). Thomas arrived home between 5 and 6 p.m. and was sober He worked in Speight's brewery. James blew in about 7 p.m. He and Thomas went into the kitchen and had some drink. Witness was sitting in the bedroom with Mrs Cuttle, who had a bad leg. Thomas and James had a barrel of beer, which had just been brought in that day. The men then went into the front room and had a sing-song. Her hubby got very drunk and started an argument with her. She called in Cuttle to pacify James, but instead of that they started bashing one another. A son of accused kicked James on the head. She and James then started to leave, when Thomas welted James over the head with the stick. James had to be attended to by a doctor. When James left the house, he was "pretty drunk."
To Mr Hawkins: She didn't drink and Mrs Cuttle wasn't drinking either. After hearing further evidence, which seemed to indicate that the whole affair was a drunken squabble, the S.M. said that Richmond got no more than he deserved. However, he could not see his way clear to dismiss the case without inflicting a small penalty. Accused would be fined 20s, with l0s 6d witnesses' expenses. -NZ Truth, 24/12/1909.
Police Court
A Vagrant Sestet. — The sequel to a surprise visit paid by Sergeant Thomson and several constables to a house, owned by a man named Kirk, in Walker avenue, at 10.30 p.m. on Monday, was the appearance of two women and four men to answer a number of charges of vagrancy and corelated breaches of the law. — Margaret Cuttle was charged with being idle and disorderly, in that she was found in a house frequented by thieves or persons having no lawful means of support; Mary Kirk with being the occupier of the house; and John Holgate with being incorrigible rogue; Robert Pobar and Thomas Reid with being rogues and vagabonds (the latter having violently resisted arrest); and Christina Lonig with being an idle and disorderly person. — All the accused were remanded till Monday. The women were allowed bail, each in two sureties of £25 and the men, each in two sureties of £50. -Otago Daily Times, 25/8/1915.
City Police Court
A Disreputable Lot.
— Mary Kirk was charged with keeping a house frequented by reputed thieves and persons having no visible lawful means of support; and Margaret Cuttle, Thomas Reid, John Holland, Robert Pobar, and Christian Long were charged with haying no visible lawful means of support and similar offences. All pleaded "Not guilty." Mr Macdonald appeared for Kirk, Cuttle, Holland, and Long; Mr Scurr appeared for Reid; and Mr Irwin for Pobar. — Sergeant Thomson deposed that, shortly after 11 o'clock on the night of the 23rd inst., he and two constables went to Kirk's house in Walker avenue and heard men inside using obscene language. The doors were locked, but through the kitchen window heseaw the two women inside. When he knocked at the back door Kirk called out: "It's the police; don't let them in; put out the lights." The police forced the door, and Cuttle and Reid tried to get away, but were brought back, and all were arrested for vagrancy. Kirk said: "Don't be too hard, sergeant, they are all friends of mine." Reid was violent, and had to be handcuffed. Pobar gave his name as Miller. At the lock-up Reid said: "If it takes two yeans, I'll do for you, sergeant, if I swing for it." Kirk was a married woman, and her husband was in gaol. — The details as to the arrest were confirmed by Constables Ames and Bandy.— Detective Harmmerly gave evidence as to the bad character of the accused and the convictions recorded against most of them, and a young girl living in Walker avenue said she had seen the accused men visiting Kirk's house several times, day and night, during the past few weeks. — Mr Irwin said there was no evidence against Pobar to show that he was a man without lawful visible means of support. It was admitted that he had been working for his father since his return to Dunedin two months ago. — Evidence was then called to rebut the charge of having no visible means of support. — Robert Pobar deposed he was an umbrella-maker, and had been in Dunedin about two months. His sister sent for him to work for his father, as ho was ill, and unable to carry on his business. He had never in his life been in Mrs Kirk's house before Monday last, when he went at Holland's invitation to see a man who had promised Holland £1 owing him. Reid also went with them. — Four other witnesses gave evidence that Pobar had been at work, carrying on his father's business for the past two months. — His Worship dismissed the charges against Pobar, and admonished him to be more careful of the company he kept. — After hearing a great deal of evidence on behalf of the other accused, his Worship sentenced Reid to 12 months imprisonment on the charge of not having sufficient lawful means of support. Holland, for being found in a house frequented by reputed thieves received a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment. Long, for the same offence, was sentenced to one month's imprisonment. Mary Kirk, for being the occupier of a house frequented by reputed thieves, was convicted and discharged on promising to go to a homo for six months. Margaret Cuttle, for being found in a house frequented by reputed thieves, was convicted and discharged, a sister undertaking to see that she was found a suitable home. All the other charges were withdrawn. -Otago Daily Times, 31/8/1915.
CITY POLICE COURT
Saturday, December 3. (Before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M.)
Dismissed Without Comment.
— Margaret Cuttle was charged with stealing, on December 1, £l0 in money, the property of Francis Smith. — Mr Irwin, who appeared for her, entered a plea of not guilty. — Subinspector Willis said that on Thursday last the accused took to her house in North Dunedin the complainant, a young man who came from the country. He gave her during the evening a £l0 note to buy something wanted for the house. When he wanted his change back she said she had given the money to a Mrs Smith. Mrs Smith, when seen afterwards, denied ever having had the money. The police were called in and after the woman s arrest the missing £l0 was alleged to have been found in Mrs Cuttle’s house. — Francis Smith, sawmill hand, from Tahakopa, said he came in to town last Thursday and put up at the Metropolitan Hotel. He had four single notes and a cheque for £l5, which he cashed for a £l0 note and five singles. He did not know accused, but he met her about 7 o’clock in Maclaggan street. She was in company with her sister, Mrs Richmond. Witness was very drunk, and accepted the woman’s invitation to go to their house in Swan street. They went in a taxi, for which he paid. At the house Mrs Cuttle looked for candles and said she could not find them. She asked for money to buy candles, and all the money he had left at that time was the £l0 note, which he gave her. She found a candle and lit it, but she did not go out of the house at all. He repeatedly asked for the note back, but she would not return it. He refused to leave till he got it. In the morning accused said that she had given the £l0 note to a Mrs Smith, who called at the house about 10 o’clock the previous evening. They went, round to "Mrs Smith’s house, and she denied ever having got the note. Mrs Smith suggested getting the police, and that was done. A detective was also sent for, and they searched Mrs Cuttle’s house, but did not find the money. Accused was taken into custody. Later he received the missing £l0 note from Mrs Cuttle’s son, who said he had found it in the house. Accused was more or less drunk, and they drank two bottles of beer and a bottle of whisky during the evening. Witness paid for the whisky. Accused and her sister had the beer. Witness did not think he was as drunk at 11 o’clock as he was when he went to the house. — To Mr Irwin: When Mrs Smith came in she heard witness asking for the money. He thought he poured out the drink. The note was found after accused had been taken into custody. — Margaret Smith, living in King street, said she went to accused’s house on Thursday evening. She saw the last witness pouring out beer to give Mrs Cuttle. Witness said, “Don’t give Mrs Cuttle beer.” He kept saying to Mrs Cuttle, “Give me back my tenner.” She said she had not got his note. Mrs Cuttle had a note of some kind in her hand. The complainant was “pretty full.” — To Mr Irwin: She did not go to search Mrs Cuttle’s house. — Detective Beer said he had visited accused’s house with Constable Aitchison. Accused admitted receiving a £l0 note from complainant to buy candles, and that she had not bought candles nor returned the note nor any change. She said she had given it to Mrs Smith. The house was carefully searched, and he was satisfied that if the note had been there they would have found it. — Mr Irwin submitted that the case should be dismissed, but the magistrate did not take this view. — Accused giving evidence on her own behalf, admitted getting the £l0 note. She went to sleep, and when complainant demanded the note she told him she had given it to Mrs Smith, and Mrs Smith would give it back. She knew she had given the note to Mrs Smith, and thought Mrs Smith would give it back. — To Sub-inspector Willis: She was considerably under the influence of liquor that evening. — Richard Jennings Cuttle, son of the accused, said he had been present at the dispute over the £l0 note. He and his aunty and sister found the note on the kitchen floor behind the big armchair about 3 o’clock. — William Smith, husband of a previous witness, also gave evidence as to the search and finding of the note. — His Worship dismissed the case without comment. -Otago Daily Times, 5/12/1921.
DEATHS.
CUTTLE. — On December 24, 1930. at Dunedin, Margaret Ellen, dearly beloved wife of Thomas Cuttle, of 16 Swan street; aged 61 years. R.LP. Private interment. — W. H. Cole, undertaker. -Evening Star, 24/12/1930.
No comments:
Post a Comment