Alexander Connelly (?)-18/3/1888

FATAL STABBING AFFRAY.

SHOCKING INHUMANITY. 

[From Our Own Correspondent.] LAWRENCE, March 20. Not a little consternation was created in Lawrence yesterday evening when it became known that a fatal stabbing affray had occurred at Tuapeka Mouth. The first intimation of the affair was on the arrival of the injured man from the Mouth, and his lodgment in the hospital here, where he expired about an hour after being admitted. The circumstances are of an exceedingly painful nature, and the gross indifference with which the unfortunate man was treated after the occurrence shows a shocking want of humanity on the part of those about him. It appears that Alexander Connolly (the deceased), in company with James McRory and a man named Walsh, were drinking together on Sunday evening at the Tuapeka Mouth Hotel, owned by a man named Edmeads. After a time McRory went outside with Walsh to look after some horses that had broken loose, and Connolly remained in the house drinking with some others. At about nine o'clock McRory was standing at Auld's store, when Connolly, with several others, advanced towards him in the dark and called him a bad name, at the same time striking him and knocking him down. When McRory was lying on his back Connolly knelt on him, putting his knee on his throat, when McRory, after trying to get up, pulled out his knife and stabbed Connolly in the groin. As to what transpired immediately afterwards I am not in a position to say, but Connolly was allowed to lie at Tuapeka Mouth all night in his clothes, which were completely saturated with blood, and no effort was made to obtain medical assistance; nor does there seem to have been any attempt at dressing the wound. In the morning he was put into a spring cart, littered with a little straw, and in that way was jolted over sixteen miles of rough road to the hospital. Even when he arrived at Lawrence he was allowed to remain in the street for a while until a permit for his admission was signed by a member of the Hospital Board. He became delirious, and died about an hour after being admitted.

There is another incident in connection with the matter which should not be overlooked. When Connolly was brought to the hospital, Dr Withers saw that he was dying, and immediately despatched Edmeads, the hotelkeeper, who had driven the man in in a spring cart, with a letter to Dr Blair, asking him to come at once and assist him in ligaturing the wound, also with a letter to the police, asking them to bring a magistrate to take the dying man's depositions. For some reason or another these letters were not delivered, and Connolly died before his depositions were taken. I understand that Edmeads denies having received the letters. It is difficult to get full particulars of the affair, as those immediately concerned are very reticent, but as an inquest takes place to-morrow all particulars will then be elicited. McRory was brought before the Police Court this morning, and remanded for a week. Inspector Weldon is conducting the case.  -Evening Star, 20/3/1888.

McRORY'S VERSION.

James McRory (the accused) was arrested by Constable Daubney in his hut at Greenfield on Monday afternoon. He appeared to be fully conscious of the terrible seriousness of his position, and admitted everything. His manner was very subdued, and he appeared to feel his position keenly. His version of the affair is as follows; — On Sunday evening about 8.30 he went to the Tuapeka Mouth Hotel in company with David Walsh, blacksmith at Greenfield station, and Alexander Connolly, the deceased. Walsh shouted drinks for the three. He (McRory) took port wine, Walsh took beer, but he does not know what Connolly had. Walsh had a horse tied up outside, and on looking out to see it, he found it was gone. He went with Walsh to look for the horse, leaving Connolly at the bar. Some time after he was standing near Auld's store, when Connolly came up to him and shouted out "Here is the b— — b— ," and struck him with his fist, knocking him down. When on his back, Connolly got on top of him and put his knee across his neck. He tried to get from under him, but could not do so. He then put his hand in his pocket and took out his knife and stabbed Connolly with it. Connolly, when stabbed, said: "Jim, I didn't think you would do that."

The knife which McRory used was found by Constable Daubney in his waistcoat pocket, and had spots of blood on it. There were also in the hut an oilskin coat, a pair of trousers, and a vest, all of which were more or less stained with blood.  -Tuapeka Times, 21/3/1888.

Tuapeka Mouth Hotel.  Hocken Library photo.

THE TUAPEKA MURDER.

(united press association.) DUNEDIN, March 21. 

The inquest regarding the death of .Alexander Connelly at Tuapeka Mouth, on Sunday last, was commenced at Lawrence to-day. McRory, who is charged with murder, was present and appeared to be very dejected. 

From the evidence of one witness it appears there is a custom of tying up men when they are drunk, and there had been talk of tying up McRory if he was drunk that night. The post mortem examination has disclosed the fact that Connelly received two wounds. 

At the inquest, Charles Edwards, labourer, who was with Connelly, stated that the two of them when going up the road saw someone, and Connelly went to see who it was. He saw Connelly make a blow at McRory, but could not say whether he hit him or not, as it was dark at the time. They took hold of each other and fell down on the ground. Connelly then sang out to witness, "Come and take hold of McRory, Charlie; he is using a knife." Witness went to Connelly's assistance, taking hold of McRory by the left hand. There was no knife in the hand that witness took hold of, the other hand was underneath Connelly's body. Both men got to their feet at the same time. Connelly staggered and fell down, at the same time calling out to McRory, "Oh you b.... to use a knife to me, a man that never harmed you," McRory replied, "I could not have helped it. Sancie, if I was to be hung to-morrow." Witness then assisted to take Connelly to the Hospital. McRory in the meantime cleared out. Witness could not tell the cause of the assault. McRory, it may be stated admits the stabbing. He gives a slightly different vision of it to that given by Edwards. 

March 22. The inquest at Lawrence did not conclude until one this morning. The jury after two hours consultation, during which they twice asked the Coroner for directions, returned a verdict for manslaughter adding a rider that while Connelly's death was directly caused by a stab in the groin, it was nevertheless expedited by the gross negligence and indifference of those about him. Dr Withers in the course of his evidence said that deceased's death would not have occurred had he received proper surgical treatment, a very moderate amount of which would have prevented his death, A little judicious management would have prevented bleeding. It was to him amazing that men should let the man die through loss of blood when by simply pressing the thumb on the vein they could have stopped the bleeding. They simply let the man bleed to death. The whole thing was mismanaged from beginning to end.

 Edmeades, publican, denied that he was any party to the quarrel or that he himself was drunk on Sunday night.   -Marlborough Express, 22/3/1888.

In consequence of evidence given at the inquest on the body of Connell, who was stabbed at Tuapeka Mouth, the police have laid an information against Jane Edmeads, the licensee of the hotel, charging her with unlawfully selling liquor on Sunday.   -Otago Witness, 30/3/1888.

 Acquitted. — In the Tuapeka Mouth manslaughter case, James McRory, the prisoner, was acquitted by the jury after a retirement of two hours. The chief defence set up by Sir R. Stout was that the fatal blow with the knife was given by the accused when on the ground, unable to escape, and in fear of serious bodily harm. The jury, in returning a verdict of "Not guilty", said they believed the wound was inflicted by the prisoner when in fear of bodily harm. There was some applause in Court at the verdict.  -Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, 13/4/1888.

Epitome of News

 "The verdict in McRory's case will" (the Tuapeka Times thinks) "serve as a useful lesson to larrikins all over the colony. It will teach them that when they wantonly attack people who are not interfering with them, and subject them to all kinds of rough usage and indignities the law will hold innocent the man who, in defending himself, inflicts serious bodily injury, or even indicts a fatal wound or his assailants." Sir R. Stout made a splendid defence for the accused — a defence which shows how a man's life might be lost or saved through or by his lawyer.  -Lake County Press, 19/4/1888.

Bernard (Barney) O'Neill, (?)-20/4/1888

THE RESULT OF HIGH WORDS. 

ROXBURGH, April 4,

A man named Bernard O’Neill was shot in the side of the face this afternoon by a person named Charlesworth. It appears that the two men had been drinking together, and the wounded man had given some offence, which is supposed to be the cause of the deed. An inquiry will probably he held to-morrow. It is possible that O’Neill will recover.  -Evening Star, 4/4/1888.

THE ROXBURGH SHOOTING AFFAIR.

[From Our Own Correspondent.] LAWRENCE, April 5. 

A few particulars are to hand relating to the shooting affair at Roxburgh yesterday. It appears that Isaac Charlesworth, a gingerbeer manufacturer, offered to give Barney O'Neill, a miner, a ride in his trap on his way to work, over the ranges in the direction of Pomahaka. While waiting for Charlesworth at his house, O'Neill made an improper remark concerning Charlesworth's daughter. This gave Charlesworth much annoyance, and, seizing a loaded gun standing in the corner of his dwelling, he made a remark to O'Neill, at the same time firing the contents of one barrel at him. The charge struck O'Neill on the side of the mouth, some of the shot lodging in his neck. O'Neill ran out of the house and fell down on the road, blood flowing freely from the wound. Dr Dunn's services were soon obtained, and the injured man was removed to Heron's Hotel. Charlesworth is now in custody, and will come before the Police Court this afternoon. Although the wound is a severe one it is expected that O'Neill will pull through.  -Evening Star, 5/4/1888.

BEFORE THE COURT.

Isaac Charlesworth was charged at the Police Court, Roxburgh, on Thursday, with shooting at Bernard O'Neill with intent to murder him. The bench was occupied by Messrs Cooper and Burton, Js.P. On the application of the police, accused was remanded till the 13th. No bail was asked for.  -Tuapeka Times, 7/4/1888.

The Lawrence paper states that Barney O'Neill is now reported to be out of danger, but he was not well enough to give evidence on Friday; therefore a further remand for a week was granted.  -WEvening Star, 14/4/1888.

Our Roxburgh correspondent, writing on Thursday, says that the man Barney O'Neill is progressing favourably. He feels very little pain; and strong hopes are entertained of his recovery. Doctor Dunn, who is attending him, does not think that the patient will be strong enough to give evidence at the court on Friday, when Charlesworth is to be brought forward. Another remand will likely be applied for.  -Tuapeka Times, 14/4/1888.

THE SHOOTING AFRRAY AT ROXBURGH.

(From Our Own Correspondent.)

Roxburgh, April 23.

The man O'Neill died at half-past 8 on Friday evening last, the 20th inst. He had repeated and severe attacks of bleeding during the week previous to his death and sank from exhaustion. A coroner's jury was empanelled to inquire into the case on Saturday, Mr Burton, J.P., acting as coroner, and Mr Inspector Hickson, of Clyde, conducting the case for the Crown. After a careful hearing, lasting from 11 a.m. to 9.50 p.m., the jury brought in a verdict of "Wilful murder" against the accused, Isaac Charlesworth, who was thereupon committed to take his trial at the July sessions of the Supreme Court.

The following is a summary of the evidence: — William Henry Charlesworth, eldest son of the accused, deposed to lending the gun with which the injury was inflicted to William Bowden, a carpenter, from whom he afterwards received it, loaded, his father having previously declined to receive it, on the ground of being unused to handle loaded firearms. On bringing it to the dwelling, which he did about an hour and a-half before the affair took place, he deposited it in a corner of the cordial factory, a lean-to to the north of the building. He remembered seeing a man and his father enter the gate leading from the rear, and after some conversation with himself, they went into the little factory, presently a shot was fired, and the man, evidently wounded, made his way over their stone wall to the ditch on the other side of the main road. After about five minutes, his father and himself went to the fallen man and endeavoured to raise him, but without success. The doctor had been previously summoned by the wife's order, and apparently without any delay whatever. Finding their efforts to raise or restore the man fruitless, they returned to the house,

Mrs Murdoch, a neighbour, gave evidence to the effect that she heard a shot fired, ran out, and saw the man with a wound in the left cheek, crossing the road. She tried to get assistance, but failed. The medical man then arrived, and escorted O'Neill to the township.

William Bowden and Adam Hamilton proved that the gun had for some time — from the 31st March to the 4th April — been in the possession of the former, and that it was handed back loaded to young Charlesworth. 

George Ormand remembered the accused, O'Neill, and another man being in the bar of the hotel owned and conducted by witness' father on the morning of the 4th April. They had some drink, but left the hotel before they could have become intoxicated, O'Neill and Charlesworth going in the direction of the latter's residence. Dr Dunn deposed to finding the man bleeding profusely near the spot where the shooting is alleged to have taken place. He treated him at his surgery, where the flow of blood was mainly stopped, and subsequently at the Commercial Hotel. He considered his patient in better hands there than he could possibly have been at an hospital, for the first 10 days he seemed to do pretty well, but after that he gradually sank, bleeding being repeated and excessive. A post mortem examination revealed the presence of extensive suppuration in the left side of the face, adjacent to the wound. Some 17 pellets of shot were also taken from the wound, several being altered in shape. On consultation with Dr Hyde, of Clyde, it was considered inadvisable to perform any operation in view of the weak state of the wounded man.

Constable William Pool deposed to meeting O'Neill bleeding profusely from a wound in the cheek. He (Constable Pool) escorted him to the doctor's house, and on the way, the deceased described how it happened. He arrested the accused and conveyed him to the lockup. Subsequently he visited the spot, noted where the blood was visible, and took measurements of the shed in which the affair occurred.

Mr Hickson read over to the jury selections from the portion of the law relating to the case, after which the deposition of the deceased was read. This has previously, in substance, appeared in our columns, so the same ground need not be gone over again. The most important feature of the deposition is the deceased's acknowledgment that he made improper overtures to the daughter of the accused — herein, of course, lying Charlesworth's plea of justification. At the same time he most positively states that the girl he addressed was represented to him as being a stranger, a young woman from Victoria, and not one of Charlesworth's household. He describes the way in which his assailant held the gun, and his own efforts to reach the other side of the road and get medical assistance. He further identifies Charlesworth, then and now in custody, as his assailant on the 4th inst.

This was all the evidence, and, after careful deliberation, the jury found that the deceased, Bernard O'Neill, came by his death by a gunshot wound wilfully inflicted by the accused, Isaac Charlesworth, on the 4th inst. This is, of course, practically a verdict of wilful murder.

The courthouse was a centre of attraction during the day, and much interest was manifested in the case, the verdict of the jury being rather curiously waited for, though the result could have been in little doubt from the first. The accused, who was undefended, and who reserved his defence, was of course formally committed for trial on the charge, and will be brought before the Supreme Court next July.  -Otago Daily Times, 25/4/1888.

(Barney O'Neill, who it will be remembered was shot in the face at Roxburgh by Isaac Charlesworth, died from the effect of his wounds on Friday evening last. An inquest was held on the following day, and Mr Charlesworth was declared guilty of murder. We do not know that ever we commisserated so deeply with a poor unfortunate laying under the capital charge us we do with the accused in this case. The circumstances leading to the fatal shot were of so exceptional a nature there is no wonder the poor unfortunate man was rendered blind to the possibly fatal consequences of his act. It is to be hoped, that Charlesworth was not aware of the gun being loaded, and that he lifted it and pulled the trigger by way of expressing his disgust for the deep insult the deceased had levelled at him and his family, and not with the idea of washing out the stigma with the deceased’s blood. With all nations the honor of a man's family, the chastity of a man’s daughters, is held sacred, and with none more so than with the Briton. Little wonder, then, that when poor Charlesworth was assailed and that under his own roof, on this touching and trying point, he lost himself in passion. Whilst the case is sub judice, as a public journalist we have to confine our remarks, hence here we leave it.  -Dunstan Times, 27/4/1888.

The trial of Isaac Charlesworth for the murder of Bernard O'Neill at Roxburgh took place at the Supreme Court, Dunedin, on Friday, and resulted in the jury acquitting the prisoner after two hours' deliberation. Charlesworth was defended by Sir R. Stout.   -Bruce Herald, 10/7/1888.

"The law is peculiar," was the remark of many on hearing that Isaac Charlesworth (the man who shot Barney O'Neill at Roxburgh), had been acquitted. To the ordinary mind it is rather odd, to put it mildly, that a person can deliberately take up a gun and discharge its contents at a man who had committed the offence of uttering some improper remarks, and then, when the case is tried, the verdict of "Not Guilty" is brought in. Of course the supposition that Charlesworth was unaware that the gun was loaded must have influenced the jury considerably, and, it is fair to assume, was the ground on which the prisoner was acquitted.  -Lake Wakatip Mail, 27/7/1888.

FOR SALE

AERATED WATER and CORDIAL BUSINESS, In Working Order.

Proprietor will instruct purchaser to manufacture goods, as he is leaving the Colony. No cordial maker within 30 miles. Two Quarter-acre Town Sections, Stone House, Stable, &C. 

Apply to J. CHARLESWORTH. Cordial Maker, Roxburgh, Otago.  -Otago Daily Times, 27/7/1888.

Catherine Ashton and Alfred Price - an "illegal operation"

Catherine Ashton, a married woman, who, it will be remembered, figured as a witness in the Clements murder case, was arrested by Chief-detective Campbell yesterday on a charge of having performed an illegal operation on a girl of about twenty years of age. She was brought before the Court this morning, and remanded for a week. The girl is at present in the hospital, and is likely to be there for some time, her condition being somewhat serious.  -Evening Star, 4/10/1899.

GENERAL TELEGRAMS. [PRESS ASSOCIATION.] Napier, This Day.

A very sharp shock of earthquake was felt here at 8.5 o'clock this morning. 

Christchurch, This Day. Goodwin has been decided on as the walking representative of the New Zealand Amateur Athletic Association at the Championship Meeting at Brisbane. 

Dunedin, This Day. Alfred T. Price, chemist, has been arrested on a charge of conspiring with Catherine Ashton to perform an illegal operation on Ellen Sequin. Price and the woman Ashton will be jointly charged on Wednesday.   -Evening Post, 16/10/1899.

Using An Illegal Instrument

[per press association]. Dunedin, October 19. At the Police Court to-day, before G. O. Graham, S. M., Catherine Ashton was charged that on or about the 6th Sept she unlawfully used a certain instrument upon Ellen Sequin. Mr Hanlon appeared for the defence, and Mr J. F. M. Fraser for the prosecution. The evidence went to show that the girl, who is a domestic servant, consulted Price, a chemist, and was under treatment by him. That proving unsuccessful Price said he would see a woman about the matter, and when the girl called again she received the address of Mrs Ashton. The girl went to Mrs Ashton, and giving her L5 the operation was performed. The girl soon got about, but she afterwards became ill and went to the hospital. When the doctors found out what had taken place and communicated with the police the accused was committed for trial and bail was fixed at two sureties of L100 each. Alfred Price and Catherine Ashton were then charged with conspiring to commit a crime punishable by hard labor for life. 

Mr Fraser, for the prosecutor, and Mr Solomon appeared for Price, and Mr Hanlon for Mrs Ashton. The evidence was much the same as in the previous case. 

The Magistrate said that the matter was so serious that he would throw the responsibility on the Supreme Court. Accused were committed for trial.  -West Coast Times, 20/10/1899.

ALLEGED ILLEGAL OPERATION. 

CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY.

Catherine Ashton, who was defended by Mr Hanlon, was brought before Mr C. C. Graham, S.M., on the 18th, and charged with having, about the 6th of September, unlawfully used a certain instrument on one Ellen Sequin. 

Mr Fraser, in opening, pointed out that the offence was one punishable with imprisonment for life. The accused was a married woman resident in Manor place, and the principal witness in the case was a girl named Sequin, a domestic servant resident in Dunedin. She consulted a chemist named Price, and for some two or three months was under treatment, which proved unsuccessful. On the 30th of August he told her that he would see a woman about her case. He did not then state the name of the woman, nor give any particulars that would lead to her identity. In consequence of what she was told subsequently she went to a house, the door of which was opened by a girl, and asked to see accused. Accused came forward, and the girl Sequin told her that Alf. Price had sent her. Accused replied, "Oh, yes. I have seen Alf. Price about you." A conversation then took place as to what the fee would be. The girl Sequin had no knowledge of what was going to be done to her, and said she was in somewhat poor circumstances, asking what the fee was. Accused replied that her fee was usually £10 but in this case, as the girl was poor, she would take £5 from her. She said not to tell Price, as he was in the habit of taking most of the money. She told the girl to come back on the 30th September with the £5. On that date the girl returned with the money, and the operation was performed. The girl went about her work afterwards, but became very ill, and had to go to the hospital, where the doctors found out that the girl had been maltreated, and very properly informed the police. The girl ultimately recovered. The whole facts came out at the hospital. A warrant was issued for the arrest of accused, and the detectives went to her house to execute it. Chief-detective Campbell told her he wanted to search her bedroom and she said it was upstairs, when they were in it all the time. The detective asked her to 'go up' with him, but she replied, "No. You go up." They, however, went upstairs together, and reached a room in which there were one or two small beds. The detective said "This is not your bedroom," and accused replied "No, my bedroom is downstairs." A search was made in the downstairs room, and a number of articles found in a box in it. On the detective picking up one of these she said, "For God's sake give that back to me for the sake of my children." The detective declined to do so, and she then said she had been using it on herself. The girl Sequin made a full statement of the facts to the police, and the young man who went with her to the house and gave her the £5 also made a full statement. 

Ellen Sequin gave evidence in keeping with counsel's opening statement. 

Thomas Scurr said he saw £5 in the possession of the girl Sequin on the evening of September 6, and saw her leave Mrs Ashton's house. 

Dr G. P. Brown gave evidence as to Miss Sequin's condition when admitted to the hospital, and added that the instrument produced might, if used on the dates named, cause the result which the prosecution said was the result. 

Dr Black also gave evidence, after which an adjournment was made for lunch.

Chief-detective Campbell, in his evidence said that on the 3rd inst. he visited accused's house, accompanied by Detective Cooney and Constable Hill. He saw accused there, read the warrant, and arrested her. She replied, "No," and after a pause, added, "I don't know the girl." Witness said he wanted to search her bedroom, and asked where it was. She answered that it was upstairs. He asked her to accompany him, but she replied that he could go up by himself. Witness replied that she must go with him, and they went upstairs. When witness saw that the room he was shown to had been used by children he asked her if that was not the children's room, and accused replied "Yes; my bedroom is downstairs." Mrs Ashton led the way to the room indicated, and witness and Detective Cooney searched it, and found a number of articles produced, amongst which was the exhibit marked "A," afterwards handed to Dr Black for examination. Mrs Ashton begged him to give her this back, saying that she had used it on herself. 

To Mr Hanlon: None of the articles mentioned were taken out of a portmanteau, to witness's knowledge. All the articles but two were taken out of a tin box, or from the dressing table. If there was any conversation about rabbit nets, witness had no recollection of taking part in it. 

Detective Cooney gave evidence as to the search, and in cross-examination said that certain of the articles produced came out of a portmanteau. If anyone said it came out of a tin box it would be wrong. 

This closed the case for the prosecution. 

Mr Hanlon intimated that he did not propose to address the court at the present juncture.

Accused was then committed for trial, bail being allowed in two sureties of £100 each. 

Mr Hanlon urged that the bail should not be increased. 

Mr Fraser pointed out that accused now stood committed for trial for a very grave offence. 

Mr Hanlon: Which cannot be proved. 

The bail was fixed at the sum mentioned. 

THE CONSPIRACY CHARGE. 

Alfred Price and Catherine Ashton were then charged with conspiring to commit a crime punishable with hard labour for life. 

Mr Fraser appeared to prosecute, Mr Hanlon for Mrs Ashton, and Mr Solomon for Price. 

Mr Fraser said he proposed to endeavour to prove to the court that the two accused persons conspired between them to commit this crime. He could not prove that the two persons came actually into contact with each other, neither was it necessary he should do so. It was sufficient if  he showed that they had common design to commit a crime, and conspired to commit it. It was not necessary for him to open the facts. He had done that in the last case, and he would only be recapitulating. However, some additional evidence would be given. He proposed to lead evidence to show that the accused Price knew that the girl was in the condition she was — the fact of his treatment of her showed that knowledge. Counsel would then show that Price told the girl that she would have to see a woman whom he would see about it, and two days afterwards he told her he had seen the woman, gave her the address, and sent her there.

Ellen Sequin in her evidence said Mrs Ashton told her not to go back to Price, and not to tell him that she had been there, because she (Mrs Ashton) had only got £5, and Price would be wanting some of it from her.

To the Bench: Mrs Ashton seemed to expect her. 

Thomas Scurr, Dr Black, Dr G. P. Brown, Detective Cooney, and Chief-detective Campbell also gave evidence, the latter saying that Price said, "I am innocent. Do I look like a guilty man? As a matter of fact, I don't know the woman." 

This closed the case for the prosecution.

Mr Solomon said there was a difficult question of law involved, though he doubted if it was well to go into it then. He was quite prepared to argue that there was no conspiracy in the case. The view taken by his learned friend did not in any way amount to conspiracy. Conspiracy was when two persons combined to do an illegal act, or a legal act in an illegal way. The basis of conspiracy was that the conspirators must combine to do between them an illegal act — an agreement between two persons that they would do such and such a thing. Now, it was not pretended that there was anything of the kind here. The girl's evidence was that Price having failed, he had said he would see a woman to whom she (the girl) might go. He had apparently seen Mrs Ashton, and had sent the girl to her. There was no suggestion that Price took any part in the procuring of the operation. An agreement made between persons was not conspiracy to commit a crime. The evidence for the Crown disproved there was conspiracy; because Mrs Ashton had said to the girl that she was not to go back to Price, and not to tell him that she had given her (Mrs Ashton) any money. It was foolish to say that it was conspiracy. 

Mr Fraser said the question of conspiracy or no conspiracy was a matter of evidence. The inference was that Price would not commit the crime himself, but got Mrs Ashton to do it. He said to the girl he would see a woman and arrange  --

Mr Solomon: Pardon me!

Mr Fraser: He said, practically, I am not going to do this crime myself, but I am going to get a tool to do it. 

Mr Solomon: I don't object to you putting evidence so long as you put it properly. 

Mr Fraser: I submit that a prima facie case of conspiracy has been abundantly proved. 

His Worship said he had no doubt in his mind that there was conspiracy, but the question was, Was there sufficient? The matter was such a serious one that he would throw the responsibility of settling the question upon a higher court. 

Both accused were then committed for trial, Price being liberated on two sureties of £100 each, the other accused to enter into her own recognisance.  -Otago Witness, 26/10/1899.

SUPREME COURT-CRIMINAL SESSIONS.

MRS ASHTON'S CASE.

Catherine Ashton, who had been on bail, answered to her name this morning and pleaded not guilty to a charge of conducting an illegal operation. 

Mr Hanlon appeared for the defence, and challenged three of the persons called as jurors, whilst Mr Fraser (the Crown Prosecutor) caused five persons to stand aside. 

The trial was very much on the lines of the preliminary proceedings in the Police Court. 

The witnesses for the Crown were Ellen Thomas Scurr, Professor Black, Detective Campbell, Detective Cooney, Dr G. P. Brown, and Plain-clothes Constable Hill. 

Mr Hanlon addressed the jury at length. First he called attention to the way in which the girl had given her evidence. She answered glibly enough when asked questions implicating the accused, but declined until ordered by the Judge to say anything that might tell against the man who got her into trouble. Further, her evidence was not corroborated in its main feature. There was nothing to show that there was ever anything wrong with the girl. As to Scurr, he was a party to the offence if there had been an offence. With regard to the evidence of the police, what they said as to the accused's remarks during the search was entirely uncorroborated, and the jury would not have failed to notice that there was no attempt to conceal the articles which the police found. He (Mr Hanlon) put it that the girl was an accomplice and the instigator of whatever was done, Scurr was also an accomplice; and apart from these witnesses, who as accomplices were interested and therefore not to be believed, there was no evidence of a crime. 

His Honor, referring to the question of accomplices, said it was competent for a jury to convict on the corroborated testimony of accomplices, but Judges always advised juries not to convict on such evidence.

The jury retired at 2.55 p.m., and had not returned by 4 p.m.   -Evening Star, 29/11/1899.

SUPREME COURT-CRIMINAL SESSIONS.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) 

CATHERINE ASHTON FOUND GUILTY. 

The jury were out an hour and twentyfive minutes yesterday afternoon. Returning at 4.20, the foreman said that they had agreed and found accused guilty. 

Mr Hanlon, who had appeared for the defence, said that Mrs Ashton was very ill, suffering from organic disease of a serious and acute character, and he would like to know if His Honor would consider that in fixing the term of imprisonment. 

His Honor: I do not think so, Mr Hanlon. She will be examined by the medical officer of the gaol, and if she is suffering from illhealth which would render a mitigation of the sentence desirable, that would be a matter for the discretion of the Crown, hereafter. I do not think I should take that into consideration now. 

Mr Hanlon: Just so, your Honor. I merely wanted to know your Honor's view of the matter. 

His Honor: What is known of the accused? 

Mr Fraser: Nothing, your Honor. She is a married woman. 

His Honor (to prisoner): The offence of which you have been convicted is an exceedingly serious one, and I am afraid from what has come out in the evidence that it is not the only occasion upon which you have been guilty of a similar practice, the evidence certainly points to the act of which you have been convicted as being part of a system. As I have already indicated to your counsel, I shall not take into consideration the state of your health in mitigation of your sentence. If the state of your health is serious in any way it will always be open to the Crown at a future date to mitigate your sentence in such a way according to its pleasure. That will be a matter for future consideration. I will pass sentence as if you were in sound health. The sentence of the Court is that you be imprisoned for seven years and kept to hard labor.  -Evening Star, 30/11/1899.

OTAGO LETTER

THE SUPREME COURT. 

The criminal sittings of the Supreme Court presented only ordinary features, with the single exception that it included a charge against a woman named Catherine Ashton of having performed an illegal operation. The evidence against the accused was perfectly conclusive, and the jury deliberated for only a comparatively short time in arriving at their verdict. The unfortunate woman completely collapsed when she received her sentence of seven years’ imprisonment, an appeal for leniency, on the ground that she was suffering from a severe organic disease, being met with the statement from the Bench that if an examination by the gaol surgeon established that she was so suffering that would afford ground for the subsequent exercise of clemency towards her. Mr Justice Williams, in passing sentence, expressed the belief that the crime of which the woman was convicted was not so rare as it should be. The "Star,” taking up this parable, asserts roundly that fetal crime is rife, and suggests that there are well-known establishments at which it is practised. The woman Ashton herself seems to have had a reputation for practising it. It was one of the fancies of the wretched man Clements, who paid the penalty last Easter twelvemonths for the murder or his wife, that she was in the habit of visiting Mrs Ashton’s. This may have been a delusion on his part, but it showed that the name of this woman was known among a certain class of people at that time as one who was prepared to treat women.  -NZ Mail, 14/12/1899.

Catherine Ashton does not appear in the newspapers after her sentencing.  There is a Catherine Ashton buried in Dunedin's Southern Cemetery, her date of death being October 1st, 1907.  If she is the same person as was tried for an "illegal operation," she would have died soon after finishing her sentence.

And what of Alfred Price, chemist?  He advertises his shop on the corner of Walker and Princes streets in 1886.  Walker St has been renamed Carroll St, possibly due to its reputation as being part of the area known as "the devil's half acre" at the time.  He features as a witness in another sad case, one of infanticide.  He died in 1914.

DEATHS.

PRICE. — On May 8, at his residence, 4 Richardson street, St. Kilda, Alfred Thomas Price, chemist; aged 56 years.   -Otago Daily Times, 9/5/1914.

Southern cemetery, Dunedin.  DCC photo.

Southern cemetery, Dunedin.  DCC photo.

William Gittens, 1878-5/7/1921.

PLEASE NOTE: William Gittens, being of African descent and born in Barbados, was described in a number of ways by the New Zealand press of his day.  Some words used to describe him are no longer acceptable.  I present them as they were published.

A negro named William Gittens, an able seaman on the steamer Waiwera, was charged with assaulting the chief cook, C. Payne, and the second cook, F. Roberts, on Monday. Evidence was given which went to show that accused had attempted to take some hot water from the galley. The cooks objected, and in the scuffle, which ensued, the second cook's arm was broken, and his head injured. The Bench decided that the parties were equally to blame. Accused in taking the water was following the usual custom. The case was dismissed.   -Press, 17/1/1907.

The fact that a certain city councillor is alleged to have brought his influence to bear to have a coloured man dismissed from the ranks of those employed on the reconstruction of the George street tramway track is expected to cause some discussion at to-morrow night's meeting of the council.   -Otago Daily Times, 13/7/1909.

"A MAN'S A MAN FOR A' THAT."

THE DISMISSED COLORED MAN. 

REINSTATED TO-DAY. 

The circumstances surrounding the dismissal of the colored laborer from the George street tramway works was discovered by the City Council last night. It will be remembered that public attention was drawn to the incident by a paragraph in Monday night's issue of the 'Star.' From the discussion last night it was clear that public talk had put the blame on a councillor who defended himself at great length. 

Rev. V. G. Bryan King wrote re a Star' paragraph stating "that a colored man had been discharged from work under control of the Council owing to nationality." It appeared to be an injustice. The writer understood that the man referred to was named Gittens. If so, he would like to mention that he had known the man since his arrival in Dunedin, and he had always found him a highly-respectable and willing worker. 

The Mayor suggested that the letter be referred to the Tramways Committee for report. 

Cr. Douglas said it had come to his ears (unfortunately not officially) that he was responsible tor the matter. He strongly objected to it going to the Committee. It was a matter that affected him personally, both as a councillor and in a private capacity. He wanted it thrashed out right away. It would be unfair to hang it up for a fortnight. There was a tremendous amount of talk amongst the public, and his name was the one attached to it. 

The matter was subsequently discussed along with the Tramway Committee's report. 

A report of an inquiry which had been made by the city electrical engineer and the chairman of the Tramways Committee was read by the town clerk. The report stated that Ganger L'Estrange, who had been examined, said that the work of the man in question had been equal to that of others engaged in the work, and there were were no objections on the part of the men engaged as to working side by side with Gittens, who was a British subject. The chairman of the Tramways committee had thereupon directed that color was not to interfere with the employment of men upon that work. Gittens was a British subject, and if an opportunity offered he was to be reemployed in that capacity which his ability required.

Another report was read. This was from the city electrical engineer, setting out that Inspector Cross had been given instructions to pay off all incompetent men who did not, in his estimation, come up to the standard required for the work in hand. This rule had been rigidly adhered to, and no exception had ever been made as to race, nationality, color, or any other peculiarity. Further, the report stated that the engineer understood that Cr Douglas went to the works, and stated that white men complained to him that colored men were getting preference over them. The city electrical engineer begged to suggest that the councillor made an error in going to the works, as the complaint should have gone through headquarters.

Cr Douglas chimed that the town clerk had failed in his duty lamentably in not giving him intimation that this matter was coming on. Until yesterday he had not the slightest idea that the local in the paper referred to himself, because, as Mr Cross stated in the engineer's report, he told him when he went on to the works that the man was being paid off for other reasons. He (the speaker) in no way interfered or suggested in any shape or form that the man should have been paid off, even had he still been in employment, he (the speaker) had been unjustly treated by all parties concerned in this matter. The least that was due to him was that the matter should have been brought under his notice. He had got sworn documents, which he read, to prove his innocence that he was in no way responsible for the man being dismissed. The color line was never introduced by him, and he had no knowledge as to who had introduced it.

Cr Burnett, who accompanied Cr Douglas to the works when he took the statements to prove his innocence, said that Cr Douglas had nothing whatever to do with the matter, so far as the evidence went in regard to the man's dismissal. Cr Shacklock was sorry that Cr Douglas had taken so seriously. If he was in public life a few years longer he would have many false accusations made against him. That was the experience of most of them. To his mind Cr Douglas made a mistake in speaking to anybody on the works. If he had wanted to find out whether a colored man was employed on the works he could have done so by merely walking along the footpath and having a look. However, it was not a very serious thing at all. Cr Tapley said that Cr Douglas had sufficiently vindicated himself. He was in no way responsible for the man being dismissed. Cr Douglas had been unjustly drawn into it.

Cr Cole was also pleased that Cr Douglas had cleared himself. He knew the colored man in question well. He was one of the most decent men in the City. He was a naturalised British subject, a member of St. Peter's Church, a leader of the choir, and a member of the Independent Order of Oddfellows. He was glad he was not discharged on account of his color. 

The Mayor said he regretted that he had not communicated with Cr Douglas, but he had been so busy that he had overlooked it. He did not agree with Cr Shacklock; that Cr Douglas was wrong in what he did. He would say, however, that it would be an improper thing for any councillor to interfere with any man in the Corporation service. 

Cr White wanted to know why the man was put off the works. An injustice had been done the man, who was doing a quarter more work than some of the white men there There were men on that work who should never have been there. He hoped that the mayor would see that the colored man got justice, and was reinstated. 

Cr Keast said that Cr Douglas erred in going on the works and interfering. Something must have transpired in regard to this color line for a councillor to go and ask if there was a colored man employed on the track. 

Cr Douglas said that his reason for asking the ganger if there were colored men on the works was because he had walked the whole length of the works and back, and there were no colored men there. 

The next business was then proceeded with. 

The workman in question was reinstated to-day.  -Evening Star, 15/7/1909.

BARBADOES BABU

FRIGHTENS FRAIL FEMALES. 

"Go 'Way, You Black Man!" 

Gittens Gets it Hot. 

William Gittens is a British: subject although he is as black as the ace of spades, being a native of Barbadoes. He has been in Dunedin for some years, and has suffered considerably because of his color. When the City Council were laying down their trams he came prominently before the public, being the central figure in a mewspaper controversy. William was employed on the tramway construction works, but certain parties with influence thought it was a shocking shame that a black man should be allowed to work among white navvies, and William was given the order of the sack. At present William lives at Woodhaugh, and when there's nothing else doing he 

GOES ROUND WITH A HORSE AND TRAP buying such material as marine stores stock — bottles, old metal, etc. On September 30 he was engaged in this occupation, and he made a call at No. 29 Princes-street, Musselburgh, which is tenanted by William James Moody. In the yard he saw about half a hundredweight of old lead pipes and made up his mind to endeavor to purchase them. Just then the lady in No. 27 (Mrs Berry )looked over the fence, and William asked her if Mrs Moody was in. Mrs Berry, desiring to rid Mrs Moody of the black man's company, said she was ill in bed, and William turned to leave, but as he passed what he reckoned was the bedroom window he knocked at it for the purpose of leaving a message about the pipes, and Mrs Moody then appeared at the door. Being told that no business was to be done, William proceeded to Mrs Berry's and asked if she had anything in his line. He was told "No," in 

A VERY SNAPPY VOICE, but, before he could leave the place, his attention was drawn to certain remarks made by Mesdames Berry and Moody, who were talking over the dividing picket fence. William thought they had said something uncomplimentary about him, and he turned back and said that if the females had any disparaging remarks to make about him, he would be obliged if they would unburden themselves of them to his face. Mrs Berry said she would get her husband and sool him on to William, and she went inside for the purpose, Mrs Moody vanishing about the same time. Then William began to express his opinion of the two ladies, and did so with the help of such a string of unpublishable epithets, that he was called on on Monday to face Magistrate Bartholomew on a charge of having used indecent language within hearing of passers-by. He was defended by Lawyer Scurr, who entered a plea of not guilty. 

Mary Jane Moody told the court that William was very polite to her when asking about the pipes. The only reason she could give why William got wild was that he had overheard Mrs Berry say to her that previously to her coming out William had his eyes on the pipes. 

After finishing his examination, Sub-Inspector Phair remarked to the S.M.: I would draw your attention to the fact that 

ACCUSED HAS BEEN STARING at the witness all the time she has been in the box. It must be very awkward for her. 

Counsel: What's that? Just because a man has a black skin may he not look people in the face? It's the worst piece of oppression I know of! 

The S.M. (to William): You had better turn round. 

Annie Harriot Berry confessed in examination that her remark that Mrs Moody was ill was merely intended to get rid of William — for worlds she wouldn't have let him know that she was in. When Mrs Moody came out first she was "in a fearful state," and, during the following conversation, she said she could hardly stand for fright. Mrs Moody also gave details of a terrible fright she had got the night before at the theatre because of a man who was "far from nice looking." When William began his language she (Mrs Berry) 

NEARLY FELL DOWN PROM FRIGHT. Gittens then got going with his version of the tale. He said he was a married main with three children. William is pretty verbose, and in describing his visit to Moody's he said: "I knocked three times, but my knocks were unheard; yet I presumed that the tenant would be in as I heard somebody moving about." When he went to see Mrs. Berry she was "blacking a pair of 'boots by the look of it." Just as he was leaving Mrs Berry's yard he heard her remark to her neighbor: "I could see he 

HAD HIS EYES ON SOMETHING. He spoke to me, but that was only a blind — he was just watching his chance and would have taken the pipes only he saw me." Just before Mrs Berry left to get her husband she called William a black something or other, whereupon he retaliated by telling the frightened female that she was "a ____ object." That was all the "language" he had used, and he didn't say it very loud. In reply to the Sub-Inspector, William said he returned to Berry's because he heard Mrs Berry 

"TANTALISING" HIS CHARACTER. As to the evidence of the ladies, it was "hardly visible" to him that they should tell such lies as they had — the couldn't "reelise" it. Mr Moody had cabled on William's wife and had told her that, if he had been a white man there would have been no trouble, but a black man was ugly enough to frighten anybody. Being informed by the S.M. that he was satisfied that 

"A FILTHY AND DISGUSTING TORRENT OF LANGUAGE" had been used, counsel put in a plea for a monetary penalty. He told how William had borne the best of good characters to date, and was supported in this by the Rev. M. B. G. King, who didn't know anything against Gittens, although he had known him for two years.

The S.M. said it was hardly a case for a monetary penalty, but as William bore a good character, and apparently thought he had a grievance, he would be fined £5.  -NZ Truth, 5/11/1910.

The Conciliation Commissioner (.Mr ,]. R. Tiiggs) sat- this morning to determine a depute, aud to arrange terms for an award (if possible) between the Dunedin Brewers, Bottlers, Bolt ie-washers, and Aerated Waters' Industrial Union of Workers, and the large number of firms cited. It- was decided to strike out of the citation the firms of Moffntt and Co. (Cromwell), Chemical Union. A. Smith, and H. F. Stevens (Dunedin) ; and the following parties were added to the dispute:—Mackcrras and Hazlett, R. Wilson and Co.. Thomson and Co. (Tnvercrgill). Wilson Malt Extract Manufacturers, Irvine and Steven-son, Well Park Brewery. Gregg and Co.. James Neil, •Tc-hn Cleary, William Gittens, and Samuel Evans. No settlement had been agreed upon at 2.30 p.m. A weed's trial of the new parcels post system in the United States resulted in the sending of so large, a number of packages that the Postal Department was unable to supply the demand for the distinctive stamps, without which packages cannot be transmitted. Thousands of telegrams have been r

THE COURTS TODAY

CITY POLICE COURT

Wounding. — William Gittens (for whom Mr Hawkins appeared) was charged with wounding Edward James Skinner with intent to cause him grievous bodily harm, and was further remanded until to-morrow week, the same Bail as before being allowed.   -Evening Star, 12/1/1912.

City Police Court

Alleged Stabbing Case. — William Gittens who appeared on remand, was charged with on December 16, wounding one Edward James Skinner, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. Mr A. O. Hanlon appeared for the accused, and Chief Detective Herbert conducted the prosecution. — The complainant, Skinner, said he was a butcher on board the Moana, which arrived from Lyttelton about noon on December 16. About 4.15 on the same afternoon he saw the accused on board, and heard him say, whilst passing the door of his own shop, “There’s that dirty butcher again." Without saying anything in reply he went out of the shop and struck accused on the head. The latter then remarked, “I’ll fix you” and walked off, returning four or five minutes later. They both started fighting simultaneously and kept it up for two or three minutes. Witness was most emphatic in his assertion that he got the better of it, repeating the fact several times with an increasing degree of satisfaction. Continuing, he said that accused then went away, and Mr Paul, the second officer, came along, and witness found that he had been cut in the shoulder and was bleeding freely from several places. The police and Dr Evans were sent for, and the latter ordered witness’s removal to the Hospital, where his wounds were dressed. During the encounter he did not notice anything in accused hand. Owing to his injuries he was incapacitated for work for a fortnight. He had known accused for about 12 months, as he was in the habit of coming on board when the ship was in port. About two months ago they had a difference over some matter. — Cross-examined by Mr Hanlon, witness stated that on a previous occasion he accused Gittens of buying ship’s stores and reported the matter to the chief officer. He might have applied certain offensive remarks to accused when he threatened to get him put ashore for buying ship's stores. He admitted having sold an article to a white man for 6s. having previously refused to sell it to accused for a like amount, and welcomed Mr Hanlon's suggestion that, so far from being annoyed, he was pleased when he discovered that the former was acting on behalf of Gittens. At this point, however, witness’s voice rather lacked a genuine ring. In answer to a further question, he stated that, on inquiry, the chief officer was satisfied that the accused had not bought ship’s stores. Ever since the Johnson-Jeffries fight witness had disliked the black, and accused’s black face annoyed him. It was the real Jack Johnson business, and though accused nearly came out on top, he was determined not to let black conquer in that fight. — Mr Hanlon: “You felt you were upholding the honour of the white race?” —Witness (unhesitatingly): “Yes,” and the court was plainly amused. In conclusion, witness stated that during the progress of the fight he was not aware that he was being wounded with a knife. All the same, he would be sorry to see the accused sent to gaol over the matter. — Dr Evans, who attended to Skinner's injuries, gave evidence as to the number, nature, position, and depth of the various wounds on his head and shoulders, and stated that an ordinary pocket-knife such as the one produced, could have inflicted them. — William Paul, second officer on the Moana, stated that on the date in question he had been attracted by loud voices, and on going in the direction from which they proceeded he met the accused. On being asked what was the matter he began to cry loudly, whereupon witness ordered him ashore. He then went on to see Skinner, whom he found bleeding profusely. He saw nothing of the actual assault. — Alexander Campbell, chief officer on the vessel, said that on December 16 accused made some complaint to him about the butcher, but he refused to listen to him, and told him to transact any business he had peacefully or get ashore. As accused began to get excited he ordered him to leave the ship. If he had gone in the way directed there would have been no need for him to pass the butcher’s shop, and the subsequent trouble would have been avoided. — Constable McMillan said that on the evening of December 15 he went to accused’s house in Woodhaugh. He said to him: “It is alleged you stabbed a man on board the Moana.” Accused replied: “ Well, we had a row. He hit me first several times on the head, and I don’t know what I did. This man Skinner has called me all sorts of names at different times, but I am sorry for what has happened.” On being searched at the Police Station in the presence of Detective Connolly, accused said that he had a knife in his hand at the time of the row, and on returning together to his house they found the pocket-knife produced in court in his overcoat. — This evidence was corroborated by Detective Connolly, who added that he saw fresh bloodstains on the knife. Accused told him that when assaulted by Skinner he had been using the knife, and in an endeavour to close it he had shut it on his hand, cutting his right thumb. This cut had been noticed by witness. — Mr Hanlon said he had no hesitation in asking for the dismissal of the case, as no jury would convict accused on the evidence offered, no malicious intent having been proved, and the man having acted only in self-defence. — The Magistrate said that when a knife was used in a quarrel the person using it should only escape, if at all, with difficulty. The present case was a very peculiar one. The complainant had brought the trouble on himself, and he had got no more than he deserved. He was quite certain that no jury would convict accused, as there was only Skinner’s evidence as to what occurred in regard to the actual fight. The wounds were all of a trivial and superficial nature, with one exception, and that was not dangerous. That accused had not attempted to use the knife with malicious intent was proved by the evidence showing that he endeavoured to close it during the initial stages of the fight. Under the circumstances, therefore, he felt it his duty to dismiss the case, which he accordingly did. — The Chief Detective said that if the witness Skinner had been in his normal condition he would have given his evidence in a much more intelligible manner, and perhaps have put a different complexion on the case. He therefore, asked that his expenses be disallowed, a request to which the magistrate acceded.   -Otago Daily Times, 22/1/1912.

INDECENT LANGUAGE.

NEGRO CHARGED. 

A SUBSTANTIAL PENALTY. 

In the City Police Court, before Mr W. R. Haselden, S.M., yesterday morning, William Gittens, a coloured person, was charged with using indecent language on the Jetty street wharf on January 18. —Mr Hanlon, who appeared for the accused, said he pleaded "Guilty," and elected to be dealt with summarily. 

Sub-inspector Foully (producing a written slip): This is the language complained of. 

Mr Hanlon (consulting the accused): That is not the language he says he used. 

The accused said he used some language, but did not consider it was obscene. He would not think of using the language alleged by the police. It was a shame. 

Frank Thrann, night watchman on the wharf, said that at 5.45 p.m. on the date in question he saw the accused on the wharf. He was gathering up some loose pieces of coal and putting them in a bag. Witness told him to stop, and the accused then used the language complained of to him. The words were the same as those shown in the police report. 

Henry Maxwell, plumber, corroborated the evidence of-the previous witness, but stated that there were not many people about. 

Thomas Brookes, railway lifter, said he had heard the language complained of, and there were some pretty severe expressions. Accused used one epithet about 100 times, and was swearing at a terrible rate. 

Mr Hanlon said the accused had pleaded guilty to using indecent language, and the expressions themselves did not make a great deal of difference. He certainly used some bad language, for which, no doubt, he should be punished. A fact that should be taken into consideration, however, was that there were apparently only two or three men about, and he was evidently smarting because he had been forbidden to take away the coal on account of his being a negro. The accused had a wife and five children, and was simply a marine dealer or hawker. 

The Magistrate: Is this the man who was before the court some months ago on a charge of stabbing a white man? 

The Sub-inspector: Yes. 

The accused said that ever since that time people seemed to have shown a prejudice against him. If he was given another chance he would wash his hands of Dunedin. He did not use the language complained of. 

His Worship said the accused was quite wrong as to people being prejudiced against him. Only cranks or abnormal persons took up that attitude. The accused would be fined £5, in default one month's imprisonment. No costs would be allowed.  -Otago Daily Times, 1/2/1913.

OVER 34,000 SOFT DRINKS

AT TAHUNA CAMP. 

In the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr Widdowson, S.M., a case of interest to aerated water makers was brought on. Lanes, Ltd., sued William Gittens, hawker, for the possession of 80 dozen aerated water bottles, value £9 10s, detained by him since the 11th November. 

Mr Calvert, appearing for the plaintiffs, said that the bottles in question belonged to Lanes, and were gathered at the late Tahuna camp. The question for the Court was whether these bottles were still the property of Lanes. It would be shown that there was no sale of the bottles according to the custom of the trade. Since the case of Thomson and Co. v. Phillips the trade had made it clear that the bottles were not sold. A deposit was charged to ensure their safe return. It would be shown in evidence that Gittens admitted that he had in his possession about 60 dozen of Lanes' bottles, supplied to caterers at the late Tahuna camp, and that both caterers used their best endeavors to collect all the bottles, but could not. It would also be shown that Lanes had not parted with the ownership of the bottles either by sale or acquiescence. 

J. P. Lane, one of the plaintiffs, said that his bottles cost wholesale 2s 4d per dozen. They had thousands of bottles in the hands of customers. He always took the bottles into stock. The custom was to take a deposit from customers of ls a dozen. The deposit paid was put against the bottles that were out. When the bottles were returned he credited the customer with the shilling. Everybody in the trade followed that practice. Every invoice bore a notice to the effect that the bottles were not sold. His charge for aerated waters was 1s 6d per dozen. He supplied Moody and Kroon for the Tahuna Park camp. To Mr Moody he supplied 1,257 dozen, and 1,093 were returned; deficit, 164. To Kroon he supplied 1,585 dozen, and 1,318 were returned; deficit, 266. There were 430 dozen short on the two. He allowed Gittens 6d a dozen for bringing the bottles back. Shortly after the camp broke up Gittens called and said he had collected 70 or 80 dozen, but would not bring the bottles in at the usual figure of 6d. He wanted 1s, otherwise he would not bring them in. Witness replied that he would not give 1s. 

Mr Bedford, who appeared for defendant, cross-examined this and other witnesses for teo purpose of establishing that the contract was contained in the circular sent round by Lanes, in which they stated that they sold the aerated waters at 2s 6d per dozen, and made an allowance of ls on the return of the empties; that on the caterers' delivery note. Lanes stated that all empties not returned would be charged for; and that it was only on their invoices, after the sale, when sending their account, that they stated that the bottles were not sold. 

P. W. J. Moody said that he undertook to supply temperance drinks to the Tahuna camp, and bought from Lanes, the terms being 1s 6d a dozen for the drinks, and 1s a dozen deposit on the bottles. He lost many bottles. He had a man on at 10s a day to collect them, and he arranged with the man in charge of the fatigue party cleaning up the camp, 6d a dozen being allowed. They wanted witness to go for the collected bottles; he said it was their place to bring them to him; and next day five bags of the bottles were gone. Saw Gittens in the ground, and saw his cart there, but did not actually see him collecting. Witness fully understood that he was not buying the bottles. 

J. C. Kroon. caterer, said that he had dealt with Lanes for years, and when he bought soft drinks for the camp — he had the tender at £5 a day — he knew he was not buying the bottles There were boys collecting bottles, and he paid them about 6d a dozen. Gittens told witness he had between 60 and 80 dozen. It was Lanes' bottles they were speaking about. Witness offered him 6d a dozen. He said he would not take it. It would be 1s or nothing. 

W. E. Lane, a director of the plaintiff company, said that his firm neither bought nor sold bottles in New Zealand. Gittens had been bringing them bottles for years at 6d per dozen as a charge for collecting. 

This completed the evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs. Mr Bedford applied for a nonsuit on these grounds: — (l) That the property in these bottles was not proved to be in the plaintiffs; (2) that if the property was held to be in the plaintiffs, then the customers were the mercantile agents according to the Mercantile Law Act, and any disposition through them was protected; (3) that even if the property was in Lanes, and even if their customers were not the mercantile agents, there was no right of immediate possession; (4) that if Lanes were the owners of the bottles, and if their customers were not the mercantile agents, even then Lanes could not recover, because there was no right to immediate possession. Lanes' remedy was only against the customer, and then only when Lanes handed over the shilling. 

At this stage the Court adjourned for lunch. 

On resuming, Mr Bedford called William Gittens, who deposed that he collected bottles, buying them at 6d and sometimes 9d a dozen, and he returned them to the firms whose names were shown therein. He returned them when he had a good parcel. He had not sold any to Lanes lately. He got 1s a dozen for Thomson's and Ingram's. He told Lanes that he had about 60 dozen of theirs, and said he would take them in if he got the 1s deposit. They had cost him 9d, and he wanted 3d profit. He did not pick up the bottles in Tahuna Park. He got some from persons in the vicinity of Tahuna Park. He had the major part of the 60 dozen before the camp. He got bottles from Ravensbourne, Green Island, and boarding-houses. He did not until recently get more than 6d for lemonades. He never got more than 6d from Lanes, but did not take them many, and none for a while past. He had recently paid 9d in town and 6d in other places, expecting to receive 1s. He did not buy sacks of bottles at Tahuna and did not pick up any. 

John R. Roxburgh, fruiterer, also called by Mr Bedford, gave evidence that when he bought from Lanes he received the circular above referred to. It was the custom of the retailers to put 1d on for the bottle. They regarded the bottle as bought from the maker and sold to the consumer. 

Legal argument was not finished when the Court rose at 4.30 p.m. It will be resumed at a date to be fixed.  -Evening Star, 9/12/1914.

AERATED WATER BOTTLE CASE.

MAGISTRATE’S JUDGMENT. 

The only business dealt with at the Magistrate’s Court on the 22nd was the deliverance by Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M., of the reserved judgment in the case Lanes, Limited (Mr Calvert) v. William Gittens (Mr Bedford). This case was heard on December 8, and the plaintiffs sought to recover possession of 80 dozen aerated water bottles, valued at £9 10s, from the defendant. During the hearing it was alleged that these bottles had been collected at the Expeditionary Force camp at Tahuna Park, the real point at issue was whether these bottles, together with their then contents, were sold when delivered to the plaintiffs’ clients at the came.

Mr Widdowson, after reviewing the evidence tendered at the hearing, said that the question whether the property in the bottles remained vested in the plaintiffs or had passed by sale to their customers would mainly depend upon the terms of the contract made by plaintiffs with their customers. The practice was to send out to storekeepers what was called a delivery ticket along with the goods. Storekeepers also received a circular, and in that circular it was stated that henceforth aerated waters would be charged 2s 6d a dozen, and that an allowance of 1s a dozen would be made for all empties returned. On the plaintiff’s invoices there was a memo: “The bottles in this invoice are not sold, although a deposit may have been taken.” But it appeared that this invoice was delivered only to merchants, and was sent monthly to storekeepers, and all those who paid cash never got this invoice at all. So it was evident that the memo on the invoice could not be invoked to supplement the contract evidenced by the delivery ticket. Different circulars were sent out by plaintiffs to different customers — to merchants, hotelkeepers, and storekeepers — and the one to hotelkeepers made it clear that the charge for bottles was by way of deposit, and it was quite evident that so far as hotelkeepers were concerned the property in the bottles did not pass to them. The circular to the storekeepers, however, did not contain any reference to deposit, and he considered that the words on the circular really contained the terms of the contract, and that under this the bottles were purchased along with the aerated waters. Judgment would he for defendant. 

Mr Widdowson added that as the plaintiff might wish to appeal, leave to appeal on law would be granted on condition that £2 5s (defendant's costs) he paid by the plaintiffs; and his Worship fixed the security at £l2.  -Otago Witness, 30/2/1914.

I.O.O.F.  (excerpt)

The half-yearly Installation meeting of Pioneer Lodge was held in the Rattray Street Hall, Bro. F. Walters, NIG., presiding over a good attendance of members and visitors. Unity Lodge paid an official visit. The decease of Bros. W. Gittens and J. H. Dickel was reported. Funeral benefits were passed, and a minute declaring the sympathy of the lodge was recorded to be conveyed to the widows of these brethren.  -Evening Star, 12/7/1920.

Amusements

GEORGE STREET SCHOOL HALL. 

GRAND BENEFIT CONCERT AND DANCE, 

in Aid of the Wife and Eight Children of the late William Gittens, will be held on THURSDAY, JULY 29th, 1920. Chair to be taken at 7.45 by Rev. Vincent King. Admission; Concert, 1s; Dance — Gents 3s, Ladies 1s.   -Evening Star, 17/7/1920.

BENEFIT CONCERT AND DANCE

An appreciative audience filled the George Street School Hall on Thursday evening last, the object being a concert and dance. The proceeds were in aid of the wife and eight children of the late Mr William Gittens, of Leith Valley. The chair was taken by the Rev. Vincent King. Miss Hilda Balk gave a pianoforte solo, and also played most of the accompaniments. Songs and duets were contributed by Misses L. Smith and Crighton and Messrs T. Bachop and Reid; songs by Miss V. Balk and Mr G. Bennet; humorous items, Messrs P. McCarthy and J. Deaker; musical monologue, Miss Powell; Paul Reno, juggling act; Sergeant H. R. Cole, lightning sketches; Highland dances, the Misses Lorna Budge and May Hungerford; pipe solo, Master Budge. Encores were general throughout the evening. During the interval the chairman sold Mr Cole's sketches to the highest bidders, thus helping to swell the funds. The concert was followed by a dance, the music being supplied by Messrs Newlands and Gibson, and Mr McCarthy acted as M.C. The concert realised about £30, and subscriptions amounting to £100 have been contributed to the fund.  -Evening Star, 31/7/1920.

The Gittens family continued to reside in Patmos Avenue, Leith Valley for a number of years.

Andersons Bay Cemetery, Dunedin.  DCC photo.