MISS Lecky, lady clerk at Mr. D. Gellately’s Agency, Chelsea, was unlucky enough to lose a bag containing her week’s wages and a few shillings over, on Saturday last.
She was setting out from the office for Henley at the time. She discovered her loss before reaching the station.
The bag contained, in addition to the cash, a few visiting cards with the young lady’s name and address thereon.
Whoever found it will surely return it, on hearing that it is the young lady’s week’s wages, which is certainly a severe loss. Whoever retains it is a poor sport indeed.
***
Sunday’s Influx of Visitors
“One swallow does not make a summer” is an old and fairly correct adage, but one summer’s weekend emphasises the fact that Frankston is the “Queen of the Bayside”.
Last Sunday bears out this assertion, in-as-much as, for an ordinary day, the influx of visitors by rail and car was, we are reliably informed, a record one, this is not to be wondered at for the reason mentioned in a recent issue, “the absence of any semblance of hooliganism”.
This is due to the vigilance of our local authorities, and in itself creates a feeling of confidence and security, thereby, inducing the most desirable class of visitors to make Frankston their looked forward to weekend resort.
***
LAST weekend a local resident lost a number of fowls through the depredations of some person or persons, at present unknown.
He wishes those concerned to know that several hens as well as the fowl-house were left behind, presumably through an oversight, and invites a further visit when something else will be doing in the “foul” line.
***
Miss Gallus, of Frankston, is at present spending a holiday in Tasmania.
***
Dr. C. Maxwell, who spent a week at Healesville recuperating after a sharp attack of influenza, returned to Frankston on Monday.
***
Mr. S. Mentiplay, of Balnarring, had the misfortune to scald his foot rather badly a few days ago, and it will be some time before he will be able to resume his usual activities.
***
Cr. and Mrs. Bradbury returned to Frankston from their motor trip to the Gippsland Lakes on Saturday last.
***
The many friends of Mrs. Parris will be pleased to learn that she is rapidly recovering from the effects of her recent accident, and hopes to be shortly able to leave the hospital.
***
Mr. D. P. Kane, who recently sustained a dislocated hip through slipping on the footpath, is doing as well as can be expected in the Alfred Hospital.
***
Frankston Police Court
Tuesday, 30th October. Before Messrs. C. Grant (chairman), J. Brown and Cr. Armstrong, J.sP.’
Four cases of parents neglecting to send their children to school were heard, the defendants each being fined 2/6.
For not having his child vaccinated, Sydney Warburton was ordered to pay 10/-.
Margaret Isabella Gessner v. Alfred L. Earl.
In the above case, Alfred L. Earl was, on the information of Margaret Isabella Gessner, charged with: (1) Using insulting words; (2) that he did most violently and maliciously threaten and declare that he would “do for the complainant”.
Mr. Richards appeared for the complainant, and Mr. Utber was the solicitor for the defendant.
At the outset the complainant’s solicitor was in favor of the Court taking the two informations as one, but Mr. Utber not agreeing to this course, the complaint relating to the threatening language was proceeded with.
The complainant, in her evidence, stated that about a year ago differences had occurred regarding her pigstys and stables.
On October 16, about 5pm., in the presence of a man named Dawson, who was ploughing for her, Earl came out with a stick, which he threw at Dawson’s dog, and, picking up the stick, he threw it at her, at the same time using vile words (these were written and handed to the Bench) and also threatening to do for her.
She was, and still is, afraid of defendant.
Under cross–examination, plaintiff said that Senior–Constable Culhane and Dr. Merrilees inspected the piggeries and stables, and, acting on their instructions, she had had them properly cleaned.
The plaintiff denied that the case was brought on through spite, or that the words complained of were used to Dawson.
Plaintiff further said that defendant had been in the habit of using bad language for 12 months, and she had complained to the police about half-a-dozen times prior to the summons being issued.
Raymond Dawson, laborer, stated that on a certain day, while ploughing for complainant, he heard stones being thrown, and saw his dog come through the fence dividing plaintiff’s and defendant’s properties.
Defendant used filthy language, and then went away with his mother.
Mr. Utber (for defendant) objected to the whole of the evidence given by the previous witness, on the ground that no date was specified, but withdrew such objection later.
Dawson, under cross-examination, said he did not see defendant threaten Mrs. Gessner; nor did he hear any threatening words other than those which were handed to the Bench, although he was only 25 yards away.
Senior-Constable Culhane stated that in consequence of reports reaching him re the state of complainant’s pigstys, he inspected them and gave certain instructions which were carried out, and the pigstys were in a much better state.
Mrs. Gessner made one or two complaints re the defendant’s conduct.
This closed the case for the complainant.
Alfred L. Earl, the defendant then gave evidence, in which he denied absolutely, using the words complained of. He said that on the date referred to he was working in his garden when he was told that a dog was running over his seed-boxes.
He chased the dog and heard Dawson say: “Don’t you hit that dog”, to which he replied: “I will hit you, too”.
Up to then he had not seen Mrs. Gessner, but at that moment heard her say: “I’ve got a witness”.
To this remark he said: “I don’t care a d—n if you’ve got a hundred witnesses”.
Mrs. Gessner was about 25 yards away. He had a stick but did not throw it, nor did he then or at any other time say: “I’ll do for you”.
Cross-examined, Earl said he never used the words written down, in his life.
Alice Emily Earl, mother of the defendant, gave corroborative evidence.
This closed the defendant’s case and without hesitation the Bench dismissed the case without costs.
The second complaint, that of using insulting words, was then heard. The evidence given was practically the same as that led in the previous case, with the exception that the main point seemed to be the distance from the public road to the point where the insulting words were alleged to have been used.
The distances varied from 70 to 110 yards. After deliberation, the Bench found the charge proved and inflicted a fine of 20/- without costs.
***
From the pages of the Frankston and Somerville Standard, 31 Oct & 2 Nov 1923
