BAILIFFS’ TROUBLES.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 195, 13 September 1888, Page 2

BAILIFFS’ TROUBLES.

DISGRACEFUL CONDUCT OF SEVERAL WITNESSES. SEVERE STRICTURES. At the- B.M. Court yesterday, before Messrs Bennett and Lucas, J.P.s, John Mears Bidgood was charged with unlawfully assaulting John Marine, assistant bailiff, while in the execution of bis duty.

Mr Brassey appeared for the informant and Mr Kenny for the defendant. Donald Murray, R.M. Court bailiff, deposed that he instructed Markie to seize certain goods belonging to Mrs Bidgood. J. Markie deposed that about four o’clock in the afternoon on the 6th inst. he went to Bidgood’s house, together with J. Allanach, for the purpose of executing a distress warrant on property belonging to Mrs Bidgood. Showed the warrant, and was allowed to take possession. Went away after this, and saw Bidgood near the Ormond store, and Bidgood threatened to go and tell Constable Farmer, and have witness arrested for trespass. Went back to the house, and was having tea when Bidgood came home. Bidgood ordered him out. Told Bidgood he would not go out, and cautioned him, as to what the consequences of interference would be. Bidgood got excited, and took off his coat, his wife endeavoring to pacify him ; then',he took off his vest—witness thought he was going to take off hie shirt. He then rushed at him, and shoved him, and witness then went out. The assault took place in the kitchen, and Mrs Bidgood, Miss Bidgood, and the boy were the witnesses of it. He was sober at the time. Had taken three glasses of beer that day. Bidgood was drunk. Elizabeth Bidgood, wife of the defendant, deposed that her husband did not touch Markie, nor rise off the sofa. The only reason she could give for Markie’s departure was that he was frightened of her husband. Bidgood did not attempt to take off his coat.

The Bench cautioned witness as to the manner in which she was giving her evidence, and also told her that she was doing her husband the very worst possible service by not telling the truth. When cross-examined by Mr Brassey witness contradicted herself frequently, and asserted that she was ignorant of Markie’s purpose in coming to the house, yet admitted that she had given him his tea. The Bench again cautioned the witness, remarking that she could not expect them to believe her statements. The witness then admitted that she did know the nature of Markie’s errand, and also that Bidgood got up and went towards Markie, but denied that he struck Markie. Emily Bidgood, daughter of the last witness, gave evidence in much the same manner as her mother, and frequently contradicted herself. Was not in the room at the time Markie want out, though previously aware she was in the room the whole time. William Bidgood deposed that he saw his father go up to Markie, when Markie went out, but his father never touched him. He did not see his father take off his coat. John Bidgood: When I came home Markie was sitting alongside the door, and I asked him what he wanted ? Went and sat down on the sofa and took off my boots. Told Markie that all inside the house was Mrs Bidgood’s and the house was mine. The principal cause of the row was about some money owing to me by Markie for some chaff. Markie said he would not stay there, I got up from the sofa. I said something to Markie and he went out. That is all I tomember about it. Mr Brassey ! Did you not say when you were sitting in the chair just now that this was a scandalous affair, and you would make it hot for someone ? Mr Bidgood: No. Mr Brassey: Are you quite sure : I myself, and others standing near, heard you. Witness: I might have said so, and I say so now. I think it a shame that a girl and a boy and a wife, who has never been in the witness box before, should be brought here. Mr Brassey said he had refrained from putting them in the box, but Mr Kenny had thought fit to do so. The Bench said it was not very creditable to see how defendant had taught them to give their evidence.

The witness: It is grieving me enough. The Bench : We are of opinion that the assault has been clearly proved. The informant’s evidence, though given rather stupidly, is trustworthy, and practically it is quite uncontradicted. The way in which you have got your wife, daughter, and son to give evidence, the Bench is of opinion, is very disgraceful indeed, The assault, of course, was of a very trivial nature, or the punishment would have been more severe. The sentence of the court is that you will be fined £5, and costs £lBs, in default of distress seven days’ imprisonment. Another charge against tlfe defendant, of rescuing goods from the bailiff, was called on, and on" defendant pleading guilty a nominal fine of one shilling, with costs £1 6s, was imposed. Another case, Allanach v. Tarr, for assault, was then called on. This assault was also committed in Bidgood’s house. It appears that after Markie left the house after taking possession on Thursday afternoon, he left Allanach in possession, at th: same time giving him the key of the front door. Tarr, who is a brother of Mrs Bidgood, went to Allanach and asked him for the key, adding that if Allanach did not give him the key he (Tarr) would knock it out of him. Tarr did not knock the key out of Allanach, but hit him on the head instead.

' John Allanach deposed that when he refused to give up the key Tarr struck him two blows on the head. John Tarr, on being sworn, denied that he had ever threatened Allanach. He first said Mrs Bidgood had told him Allanach had got the key, and shortly afterwards said it was Miss Bidgood, later on fie was not sure whether it was Mrs or Miss Bidgood, and on being sharply interrogated by Mr Brassey, witness arrived at the conclusion that it was Bidgood who had told him. Mrßrqssey: You are not going to change your mind again, are you? Witness: No. Witness, continuing, said he simply asked Allanach for the key, and never struck him' oh tfie head. Miss Bidgood, the boy, and an old lady were in the room at the time. jijr Brassey; What was that old lady’s name? Witness i I do not know. Mr Brassey; Was she not your mother ? Witness: Ido not know—-She might have been—Yes. Mr Brassey: Well, you are a lively crowd | The Bench : Do you wish us to believe that simply .bflfiause you asked Allanach for the key he got ,up and went out ? Witness; Yde.‘ The Bench; Do you expect US to believe that ? '' '■ To this question the witness made no reply. Mr Kenny submitted that the bailiff had done wrong in taking the key. He was in possession of the furniture, and not of the house itself. ' ' Mr Brassey thought the bailiff had done right. In these cases the witnesses bad attempted to show that the informants had committed gross perjury. They went into the witness box and swore the most wilful and diabolical lies that ever were uttered. The Bench said: We are of opinion that the defeudant’s evidence is utterly untrustworthy from beginning to end, and cannot help thinking that the evidence given in this and the previous case has been a disgrace to the place. We do not think there has been a single word of truth spoken from beginning to end, and had there been sufficient evidence to justify a conviction we should have taken further steps and had the defendants indicted for perjury, No doubt Mr Kenny had done fiis best.' Mr Kenny said he had done his best to get the witnesses to speak the truth, The defendant was fined 20s and costs, or in default three days’ hard labor.