INSPECTOR Borsum, of the Railway Department, proceeded against Richard Bryant on a charge of using offensive words in a railway carriage at Baxter on the 13th December.
Defendant, who was represented by, Mr. L L.L. Rostron, pleaded not guilty.
Thomas Bowell, stationmaster at Baxter, said that, in consequence of what he was told, he went to the carriage in which defendant was, and as he opened the door several passengers walked out, saying that they had had enough of such conduct.
He found four or five men in the compartment in an intoxicated state.
There were several empty beer bottles scattered about the floor, and the place was like a pig-sty.
Witness told defendant to sit down, but he took no notice.
Defendant stood at the door, barring witness’ progress.
Witness then pushed his way into the, carriage, and defendant fell into a seat, with his arm around the doorway.
Defendant then used the language complained of. (The words said to have been used were written on a slip of paper and handed to the Bench.)
Witness then told defendant to get out of the carriage but he refused to go.
Eventually defendant was placed in a carriage in another part of the train.
Cross-examined by Mr. Rostron, witness said he did not go direct to the car in which defendant was located after receiving the complaint.
He entered a carriage farther down, and listened, but did not hear any objectionable language.
When witness later tried to enter the carriage, defendant blocked him, and witness pushed him into a seat provided for passengers.
He was positive defendant used the language complained of.
He did not say, “I have a ticket, and am entitled to travel.”
Witness did not hear defendant say, “Who the — are you?”
The men in the carriage were all drunk except Owen Bryant, defendant’s brother.
Witness knew there were in different stages of drunkenness, but would not say if defendant and his companions were merely “military” drunk or “civilianary” drunk. (Laughter.)
Re-examined: Witness had no doubt at all that defendant used the language complained of.
George Booth, hatter, of Melbourne, said he was a passenger on the train in question. He saw defendant, and heard him use words complained of.
The stationmaster had difficulty in forcing his way into the carriage.
Cross-examined: Witness was not travelling in the same compartment as defendant.
Joseph Grant, operating porter at Baxter said he saw the stationmaster, trying to enter defendant’s carriage, and he went to his assistance.
When witness got to the spot defendant was in a seat, with his arm around the door. Witness assisted in removing defendant to another carriage.
Cross-examined: Witness had been to Mornington that day, where he had had two drinks. He had not been visiting the hotels, and was not in a pugnacious mood.
Inspector Borsum objected.
What had the condition of witness to do with the charge? If he was as drunk as forty cats it would not affect the present charge.
Mr. Rostron: Did you not “shape up” to defendant?
Inspector Borsum: What if he did?
Mr. Rostron: Did you “rough handle” these men?
Inspector Borsum: What men? We have only one man before the court at present.
Witness: I released defendant’s arm from the doorway, and assisted to drag him out of the carriage.
This concluded the case for the prosecution.
The defendant on oath said he was a fisherman residing at Hastings.
On the date in question the railway carriage in which he was travelling was pretty full, and there was a good bit of drink on board.
Defendant was sitting near the window, when the stationmaster entered the compartment and roughly pulled him out and put him into another carriage.
He did not use the language complained of.
lnspector Borsum : You never used language like it in your life?
Defendant: Not in public.
Inspector Borsum : You use it in private, then? How many drinks had you?
Defendant: Four or five in town, and one in the train. There was no occasion, for the stationmaster to make a fuss. The men in the carriage were only singing a bit. There were a few empty bottles lying about. Defendant was not standing at the door, as alleged. He was in his seat.
Owen Bryant, bargeman, Naval Base, said he was a brother of defendant.
Mr. Rostron: The stationmaster says there was only one sober man in the carriage.
Witness: It must have been me. (Laughter.) They were all fairly sober. Three were quite sober – defendant, Brown and myself.
Witness, continuing, said he got on the train at Flinders Street, and nothing happened till they got to Baxter. At Frankston three others entered the carriage, and there was scarcely standing room. Three or four were standing.
At Baxter the stationmaster came to the carriage and said, “Out of this!”
Witness was the only man standing at the doorway, and he addressed the stationmaster, saying, “I’ll look after him; he is alright.”
Witness then put his hand on the door in a leaning attitude, and not with the intention of blocking it.
Defendant was seated all the time. Witness did not hear anyone use the words complained of.
He did not believe they were used.
Cross – examined: The words were not used. He had heard the witness Booth say that the expressions were used. Still, witness did not believe that Booth heard the words.
This concluded the evidence.
While the Bench were considering their verdict, Mr. Rolston suggested that the case be adjourned for six months, the defendant to come up for sentence if called upon.
Defendant was a returned soldier, who had served his country, and it was appropriate that, at this season of peace and good-will, clemency should be shown.
The Chairman: We believe the evidence of the stationmaster, and we think that a returned man should not be guilty of such conduct.
Mr. Rolston: Trouble of this sort usually occurs between Melbourne and Frankston. I would like the Bench to remember that this defendant is not one of the “flannelled brigade” responsible for so much trouble. Defendant is a worker, and a returned soldier, and it would be a pity to have the stigma of a conviction against him if justice could be met in another way. Defendant would appreciate a chance to prove worthy of the confidence of the Bench.
Inspector Borsum: If that is so, he should have come to the court in a different manner, and not have tried to make out that the servants of the Railway Department were deliberate liars.
The Bench called Constable Revell, of Hastings, who said he had found defendant a quiet lad during the time he had been at Hastings, and had not given the police any trouble there up to the present.
Constable Revell added that he saw defendant arrive at Hastings on the night of the 13th and he was then the worse of liquor.
Defendant was fined £2, with 6/- costs, in default distress.
***
FROM the pages of the Mornington Standard, 4 January 1920
Compiled by Cameron McCullough
INSPECTOR Borsum, of the Railway Department, proceeded against Richard Bryant on a charge of using offensive words in a railway carriage at Baxter on the 13th December.
Defendant, who was represented by, Mr. L L.L. Rostron, pleaded not guilty.
Thomas Bowell, stationmaster at Baxter, said that, in consequence of what he was told, he went to the carriage in which defendant was, and as he opened the door several passengers walked out, saying that they had had enough of such conduct.
He found four or five men in the compartment in an intoxicated state.
There were several empty beer bottles scattered about the floor, and the place was like a pig-sty.
Witness told defendant to sit down, but he took no notice.
Defendant stood at the door, barring witness’ progress.
Witness then pushed his way into the, carriage, and defendant fell into a seat, with his arm around the doorway.
Defendant then used the language complained of. (The words said to have been used were written on a slip of paper and handed to the Bench.)
Witness then told defendant to get out of the carriage but he refused to go.
Eventually defendant was placed in a carriage in another part of the train.
Cross-examined by Mr. Rostron, witness said he did not go direct to the car in which defendant was located after receiving the complaint.
He entered a carriage farther down, and listened, but did not hear any objectionable language.
When witness later tried to enter the carriage, defendant blocked him, and witness pushed him into a seat provided for passengers.
He was positive defendant used the language complained of.
He did not say, “I have a ticket, and am entitled to travel.”
Witness did not hear defendant say, “Who the — are you?”
The men in the carriage were all drunk except Owen Bryant, defendant’s brother.
Witness knew there were in different stages of drunkenness, but would not say if defendant and his companions were merely “military” drunk or “civilianary” drunk. (Laughter.)
Re-examined: Witness had no doubt at all that defendant used the language complained of.
George Booth, hatter, of Melbourne, said he was a passenger on the train in question. He saw defendant, and heard him use words complained of.
The stationmaster had difficulty in forcing his way into the carriage.
Cross-examined: Witness was not travelling in the same compartment as defendant.
Joseph Grant, operating porter at Baxter said he saw the stationmaster, trying to enter defendant’s carriage, and he went to his assistance.
When witness got to the spot defendant was in a seat, with his arm around the door. Witness assisted in removing defendant to another carriage.
Cross-examined: Witness had been to Mornington that day, where he had had two drinks. He had not been visiting the hotels, and was not in a pugnacious mood.
Inspector Borsum objected.
What had the condition of witness to do with the charge? If he was as drunk as forty cats it would not affect the present charge.
Mr. Rostron: Did you not “shape up” to defendant?
Inspector Borsum: What if he did?
Mr. Rostron: Did you “rough handle” these men?
Inspector Borsum: What men? We have only one man before the court at present.
Witness: I released defendant’s arm from the doorway, and assisted to drag him out of the carriage.
This concluded the case for the prosecution.
The defendant on oath said he was a fisherman residing at Hastings.
On the date in question the railway carriage in which he was travelling was pretty full, and there was a good bit of drink on board.
Defendant was sitting near the window, when the stationmaster entered the compartment and roughly pulled him out and put him into another carriage.
He did not use the language complained of.
lnspector Borsum : You never used language like it in your life?
Defendant: Not in public.
Inspector Borsum : You use it in private, then? How many drinks had you?
Defendant: Four or five in town, and one in the train. There was no occasion, for the stationmaster to make a fuss. The men in the carriage were only singing a bit. There were a few empty bottles lying about. Defendant was not standing at the door, as alleged. He was in his seat.
Owen Bryant, bargeman, Naval Base, said he was a brother of defendant.
Mr. Rostron: The stationmaster says there was only one sober man in the carriage.
Witness: It must have been me. (Laughter.) They were all fairly sober. Three were quite sober – defendant, Brown and myself.
Witness, continuing, said he got on the train at Flinders Street, and nothing happened till they got to Baxter. At Frankston three others entered the carriage, and there was scarcely standing room. Three or four were standing.
At Baxter the stationmaster came to the carriage and said, “Out of this!”
Witness was the only man standing at the doorway, and he addressed the stationmaster, saying, “I’ll look after him; he is alright.”
Witness then put his hand on the door in a leaning attitude, and not with the intention of blocking it.
Defendant was seated all the time. Witness did not hear anyone use the words complained of.
He did not believe they were used.
Cross – examined: The words were not used. He had heard the witness Booth say that the expressions were used. Still, witness did not believe that Booth heard the words.
This concluded the evidence.
While the Bench were considering their verdict, Mr. Rolston suggested that the case be adjourned for six months, the defendant to come up for sentence if called upon.
Defendant was a returned soldier, who had served his country, and it was appropriate that, at this season of peace and good-will, clemency should be shown.
The Chairman: We believe the evidence of the stationmaster, and we think that a returned man should not be guilty of such conduct.
Mr. Rolston: Trouble of this sort usually occurs between Melbourne and Frankston. I would like the Bench to remember that this defendant is not one of the “flannelled brigade” responsible for so much trouble. Defendant is a worker, and a returned soldier, and it would be a pity to have the stigma of a conviction against him if justice could be met in another way. Defendant would appreciate a chance to prove worthy of the confidence of the Bench.
Inspector Borsum: If that is so, he should have come to the court in a different manner, and not have tried to make out that the servants of the Railway Department were deliberate liars.
The Bench called Constable Revell, of Hastings, who said he had found defendant a quiet lad during the time he had been at Hastings, and had not given the police any trouble there up to the present.
Constable Revell added that he saw defendant arrive at Hastings on the night of the 13th and he was then the worse of liquor.
Defendant was fined £2, with 6/- costs, in default distress.
***
FROM the pages of the Mornington Standard, 4 January 1920
First published in the Frankston Times – 23 December 2019
