| Notes |
- Arrived in Sydney, Australia aboard the ship Abergeldie on 23 December 1884.
- A ROW ON THE WHARF.
Yee Sang was summoned by William Albert Nunn for using obscene language, whereby a breach of the peace might be caused.-Mr. Lyons appeared for the defendant, and Mr. Peterson for the complainant. There was also a cross summons brought by Sang against Nunn for assault.
There was a passage-at-arms between Mr. Peterson and the Police Magistrate, on the latter suggesting that the two cases should be heard together. Mr. Peterson objected, and the Police Magistrate then remarked that he never saw a man like Mr. Peterson for dragging things out to an unnecessary length. He then called on the case of Nunn against Yee Sang: when Mr. Peterson asked that the other case might be taken. Mr. Lyons objected, and the Police Magistrate held to the case he had already called. Mr. Peterson, with some vehemence, said it was not fair. The assault summons was laid first, and should have been called on first.
The Police Magistrate said the case he had called on was entered in the summons book first, and would be heard first. Mr. Peterson again remarked that it was unfair, and persisted in his objection. Mr. Lyons asked whether the Bench were going to be dictated to by Mr. Peterson, and the latter gentleman said Mr. Lyons was not going to have it all his own way. The Police Magistrate then peremptorily stopped further discussion, and directed the case of Nunn against the China- man to be proceeded with.
The prosecutor in his evidence said he was a carter ; on the 1st of December he was on the wharf when the defendant came down for some goods ; as he passed witness he asked whether he wanted a cart, and he replied "You-," at the same time giving him a push in the chest ; the witness retorted by touching him with the point of his whip, and a scuffle ensued ; witness walked away, but a fight was subsequently entered into.-The plaintiff was cross-examined, and had left the box, when the Bench directed Mr. Peterson's attention to the fact that the whole of the allegations contained in the information had not been proved. Mr. Peterson said he had not seen the information yet, and having inspected it he was allowed (after protest by Mr. Lyons) to put the prosecutor back into the witness box. Nunn gave some additional evidence, but adhered to his previous assertion that after the Chinaman had sworn at him he walked away.-
The Bench held on this evidence that no breach of the peace could have been occasioned, and dismissed the information.-Mr. Peterson then asked leave to amend the summons, but the Police Magistrate said that was a thing which had never been allowed the altering of a summons to meet evidence. Mr. Lyons was about to address the Court on the point, when the Police Magistrate said he wished he would not persist in continually interrupting the Bench. It was very discourteous and highly improper. -Mr. Lyons said it was brought on by Mr. Peterson doing highly improper things.-The case was then dismissed, and Mr. Lyons said as the defendant had not been called on, he thought costs should be allowed.-The Police Magistrate said the Bench would consider it when the other case was concluded.
Nunn was then charged with assaulting the Chinaman. Mr. Lyons prosecuted, and Mr. Peterson defended.-The Chinaman, whose face was badly cut about, said he was on the wharf looking after some fruit, and was stooping down in the act of signing a delivery book, when the defendant hit him with his whip on the hinder-quarters. He pushed the whip away, and when he turned round the defendant hit him in the face, following it up with a volley of blows, which cut his face and nearly blinded him with the blood.-Captain Thomas, wharfinger for Messrs. Walter Reid and Co., gave a clear account of what took place.
Nunn prodded the Chinaman first with his whip handle, and the Chinaman said "Eh, what you do!" Nunn made a second attempt, which the Chinaman endeavoured to push away ; Nunn lost his temper at this, and witness, thinking it was getting rather warm, turned to get clear; immediately afterwards he heard Nunn say " You China -, you hit me in the stomach, will you ! " and with that he de- livered several blows in quick succession in his face ; the Chinaman tried to pick up a broom handle, but before he could lift it Nunn had rushed at him, and again struck him twice in the face.-Alfred S. Delandelles receiving, and delivery clerk to the A.U.S.N. Company, gave corroborative evidence, as also did Frederick Rosenberg, Custom House officer. All these European witnesses gave the Chinaman a good character, and said he had a peaceable disposition.- For the defence Nunn gave evidence.
He repeated what he had said before, that he civilly accosted the Chinaman to see whether he wanted a cart, when the latter swore at him; then the Chinaman picked op a broom, and lifted it above his head to strike him, and he hit him with the back of his hand in the face ; he made two subsequent attempts to pick up things to hit witness with, and each time he (witness) struck him ; he denied, that Captain Thomas was where he had sworn he was when he saw the row, or that he could have seen what occurred.-Mr. Lyons did not cross-examine.-Albert Harris, labourer, said he did not think Nunn used any unnecessary violence to the Chinaman.-John Saunders, carter, and James Hickman, carter, were also called, neither of them being cross-examined.-Mr. Peterson addressed the Court at length, but the Bench said they would not call on Mr. Lyons in reply.
They fined the defendant 20s., with 6s. 8d. costs of Court, 15s. 8d. witness's expenses, and ?2 2s. professional costs. The Police Magistrate said the fine was made light because the costs were heavy.-The defendant Nunn made some impertinent remarks to the Bench when the decision was announced, saying he thought he had better take it out, and that it was a high price to have to pay for being insulted by a Chinaman
APA citation: ROCKHAMPTON POLICE COURT. (1890, December 6). Morning Bulletin (Rockhampton, Qld. : 1878-1954), p. 6. Retrieved April 4, 2011, from http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article52340239
- INTERPLEADER CASE.
William Lidstone, William Nunn, James W. Nunn, claimant. Mr. W. Thompson appeared on behalf of Mr. J. W. Nunn.
It appears in this case that Lidstone had recently obtained a verdict at the Court from William Nunn for wilful destruction of property, and not having obtained the money, he ordered the bailiff to seize Cab No. 47, the property of William Nunn, and in this was prevented by J. W Nunn, tailor, who asserted he was the rightful owner of the cab, having bought it from his brother. Harry Cheetham, tailor, gave evidence stating that J. W. Nunn said the cab was his property, and had offered it to witness for sale or hire. The Police Magistrate dismissed the case.
SMALL DEBTS' COURT. (1891, August 21). Morning Bulletin (Rockhampton, Qld. : 1878 - 1954), p. 5. Retrieved December 23, 2014, from http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article52349161
- The only case of interest was that in which William Albert Nunn, a carter, sued Dr. Voss for 1 pound for work done. The defendant paid 15s. into court, but disputed the remaining 5s. Mr. R. A. Brumm appeared for the defendant. It was stated the case was defended as a matter of principle. Dr. Voss had engaged the plaintiff to remove a certain quantity of rubbish from his yard, and Nunn took it to the rubbish ground at the back of the new gaol. He said he was engaged from a quarter-past nine in the morning until nearly six in the evening in removing three loads to the locality named. Dr. Voss said the plaintiff went away with the last load shortly after three o'clock. He offered him 15s., being at the rate of half-a-crown an hour - the price prescribed by the municipal bye-laws for six hours, but he refused it, demanding 25s. at first, and then reducing his charge to 1 pound. Dr. Voss refused to pay any more, saying it was an extortion, and the plaintiff then issued a summons. The plaintiff laid stress on the fact that it was unpleasant work he was asked to do, and said "When we do dirty work like that for gentlemen we expect something extra." Before the defendant's case was concluded the Bench intimated they had made up their minds, and a verdict was entered for the amount paid into Court, 15s. Mr. Brumm was claiming costs, but Dr. Voss said he would not make them. The plaintiff was extremely dissatisfied with the verdict, and asked the Chairman of the Bench (Mr. Meikle) whether he could sue for the remainder of what he claimed anywhere else. Mr. Meikle said as far as they were concerned the case was settled. The plaintiff said something more would be heard about the matter before long. He asked what about costs; but the Bench took no notice of his question, and went on with the business.
The Morning Bulletin, ROCKHAMPTON. (1891, February 13). Morning Bulletin (Rockhampton, Qld. : 1878 - 1954), p. 4. Retrieved December 23, 2014, from http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article52342255
|
Abt 1858 - 1921 (63 years)
