06/10/2025
In 1903, Wyndham Street briefly became a battlefield when one man accused another of giving his wife a 'certificate' - a written attestation of her good character. As you probably are now, the magistrate was baffled as to why this justified an umbrella assault, and fined the man 20 shillings (or seven days in gaol) plus 25s 6d costs. Full article included below. ~JM
Published in the Shepparton Advertiser, 27th March, 1903
John Stubbs v Alexander Beechey:
Insulting words in a public place. Mr Sutherland for complainant, who deposed that on Tuesday, 3rd inst., about 10.30 p.m., he was going home from his office, and when in Wyndham-street north heard someone following him and muttering. Recognised the voice as that of defendant, who used very abusive language to him, calling him a cur and a snake in the grass. Witness turned round and asked defendant what he meant by the language, when defendant said, “You gave my wife a certificate,” and lunged at witness with an umbrella, and tried to kick him. After a struggle witness thought it better to go, and went away. Defendant called out after him, but did not catch up to him. Defendant asked complainant if he had not damaged a lock, and if his children had not wilfully trespassed on his place, to which complainant said they had not done so to his knowledge, but they had been playing with defendant's children. In reply to defendant, complainant said that Mrs Beechey had been for a drive with him and his wife, but not clandestinely. He had given Mrs Beechey references in connection with a “passport” after she had gone away, at the request of Mrs Beechey’s mother, but not to go away with. The “passport” referred to her as a married woman. Defendant ran after complainant, and said he had selected the spot so as not to make a scandal.
James Nugent, shire secretary, deposed that on the night in question he went to bed early, and while dozing he heard a noise of scuffling and voices at his front gate in Wyndham-street north. Recognised the voices of complainant and defendant, and heard bad language used. He thought Beechey referred to his “bike.” Then he heard complainant running away and defendant after him, calling him “a — cur.” In answer to defendant, witness said he went over in the morning and found marks of a scuffle. Asked the complainant next morning with whom he had been scruffling.
In reply to the Bench, defendant said that he had received great provocation, and considered he was justified in retaliating. Complainant brushed past him in an arrogant way, as usual, and defendant admitted calling him a cur and scuffling with him with an umbrella, but did not run after him.
The P.M. said that defendant had no foundation for his foolish ideas, and had offered no wrong. The certificate was in his wife's favour—not against her. The next time there would be heavy punishment. There was no justification, and defendant would be fined 20s, or seven days, and 25s 6d costs; in default distress.