The Swearing J.P.s of Lincolnshire

Although Sir George Moody was for many years a Justice of the Peace, in 1909 he found himself on the wrong side of the law at Lincoln Assizes as the defendant in a rather bizarre case.: 

“THE BETTER MAN!”

WHO IS THE SWEARING CHAMPION?

FISH DOCK LANGUAGE

AMUSING LIBEL ACTION

(By our own reporter)

A query as to who of two Grimsby J.P.s is the champion swearer of Lincolnshire was generally credited at Lincoln on Thursday in resulting in a dead heat.

It arose out of the action brought by Mr Fred Lister, secretary of the Grimsby Co-operative Engineering and Ship Repairing Co. Ltd, against Mr G.E.J. Moody, J.P., of Messrs Moodys and Kelly, Fish Docks, to recover damages for alleged slander.

Mr Lewis Thomas, K.C., with Mr R.J. Drake (instructed by Messrs H. Woodhouse and Chambers, of Hull) appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Hugo Young K.C., with Mr T. Hollis Walker (instructed by Messrs Reed and Bloomer, of Grimsby) defended.

Mr Lewis Thomas, K.C., having opened the case, plaintiff told a somewhat interesting story. He had been secretary of the Engineering Co. since 1891. A contract was entered into for certain repairs to the trawler Danneborg, one of the terms being net cash. That contract was entered into by Messrs Haagensen and Co., of Grimsby, who were acting for the underwriters of the vessel; and as the work was nearing completion, application was made to Mr Haagensen for a cheque for £270, the contract price. On December 21st Mr Muller, an engineer from Denmark, acting for the owners of the vessel, called upon him and asked if the ship could leave the company’s wharf and be dry docked. Witness told him his instructions were that the ship should not leave the wharf without the cash, or a guarantee of payment. At that time the work had not been completed. On the following night witness was rung up on the telephone at his private house, and found it was the defendant speaking. Mr Moody asked why the vessel was being detained, and the witness told him it was not being detained, as the work had not been completed.

LURID DETAILS

Witness then gave the lurid details of what he said took place. “You know you are detaining it in a ______ fraudulent way,” said defendant, to which witness replied, “I am not.” Defendant, who was speaking in an excited voice, said, “I shall remove the ship myself.” “If you do,” said witness, “you will hear further about it.” This led the defendant to say, “Who are you, you ______?” After this expression witness hung up the receiver and disconnected the telephone.

On Wednesday morning came the incident upon which the action was based. “In the Board room,” said plaintiff, “I was there with Mr G.L. Alward, J.P., chairman of the company, when defendant came in. Mr Alward asked him what he had come for, and he said, “I have come about the Danneborg.” Mr Alward replied, “Who are you acting for?” and Mr Moody replied, “Don’t you know I am the agent?”

To this Mr Alward replied that he did not know him in that particular transaction, as the contract for the repairs had been made with Messrs Haagensen and Co., who were the agents for the underwriters. Mr Moody retorted, “I have come to see you about this gentleman (meaning witness): he is acting in a curious manner.” Mr Alward replied, “Whatever Lister has done has been by the instructions of the company. Defendant, raising his voice and turning to witness said, “I know you, you _____________. You are a ___________ thief, a __________ thief, and I know your ___________ thieving ways and the fraudulent way in which you do your business, and I’ll publish it abroad to your customers.” Having said this Mr Alward at once told defendant it was a serious statement to make. In the meantime witness had written down what defendant had said, and showing it to him told him it was a serious statement to make. Witness also showed the words to Mr Alward, and he again pointed out to defendant that they were very serious and advised him to withdraw them. Witness also warned defendant that if he did not withdraw the words he would try to make him. Defendant thereupon said, “I shall not. I will see you in _______ first.”

VIGOROUS CROSS EXAMINATION

Witness was taken through a fairly lengthy and vigorous cross-examination by Mr Hugo Young, K.C. He knew now, but not then, that defendant had previously acted as agent for the vessel. In the specification it was provided that the ship should be dry-docked if necessary, and that the engines should be run at full speed for two hours if necessary; but it would not be necessary to do that outside. It could be done alongside their own premises. The time to complete the contract expired on December 1st. The delay was due to an injury to a condenser, and was the fault of the company, and was put right at the company’s expense. He did not know that if the ship was not dry-docked before December 22nd it meant a week’s delay owing to the Christmas holidays intervening.

Mr Alward is rather given to violent language, is he not? – No.

He is a J.P., too, isn’t he? – Yes.

Grimsby is noted for rather strong language on the docks isn’t it? – I don’t know.

Mr Alward does not use violent language? – No.

Did he say when Mr Moody came into the room, “What the ___________ have you got to do with the Danneborg? – No

Did he say, “We have had enough of these ___________ thieving foreigners?” – No, he did not.

Did he say, “We have got the ___________ vessel locked up in our yard, and we shan’t let the _________ go until we get the dollars?” – No, he did not.

LOOKED ON WITH ASTONISHMENT

Mr G.L. Alward, J.P., chairman and managing director, gave corroborative evidence. Brought to the scene in the Board room, he stated that when Mr Moody came in he asked him, “What can I do for you?” Moody replied, “I’ve come about the Danneborg,” and witness told him they were dealing with the underwriters in the matter. Mr Moody then commenced a torrent of abuse upon Mr Lister, such as his being a _________ shuffler and fraudulent manner of doing business, until, said Mr Alward, “I looked on with astonishment.” After plaintiff had written the remarks down he placed the paper in front of the defendant, and said, “Now, Mr Moody, do you see those words?” Witness told him that Lister was acting by his authority, and Mr Moody then told witness he was also a ___________ fraud, and as bad as Mr Lister was. The plaintiff told defendant he would have to withdraw what he had said, or be made, witness thought Mr Moody began to realise his position, because his subsequent remarks were less violent. The office staff below could hear what was said; and, in fact, defendant spoke so loudly that he believed people passing in the street could hear what was said. After defendant had threatened to proclaim it broadcast, witness replied. “If you say anything to injure either myself or the company you will have to take the consequences.”

The cross-examination by Mr Hugo Young commenced in amusing fashion.

Mr Young: Do you swear, Mr Alward?

Mr Alward: Yes.

Mr Young: Are you commonly known in Grimsby as the swearing J.P.?

Mr Alward: No; I think Mr Moody has taken that position. He can beat me.

Mr Young: You mean that Mr Moody took the laurels from you?

Mr Alward: Yes.

Mr Justice Lawrence: You were the head for some time, were you? (Laughter)

Mr Young: You are now deposed?

Mr Alward: Yes; I suppose I am.

His Lordship: (interrupting Mr Young, who was proceeding to this next question) Stop, I must take a note – “I swear sometimes, but Moody can beat me” (loud laughter).

Mr Alward: I think there is not a great deal in it.

Mr Justice Lawrence: Perhaps you both run a dead heat?

Mr Alward: Perhaps we do.

Mr Justice Lawrence: We will call it a dead heat (laughter).

GRIMSBY’S STRONG LANGUAGE

After formal evidence by Mr Mills, consulting engineer, Mr Hugo Young opened the defence. “Gentlemen,” he said, “if every case of abusive language at Grimsby on the docks was brought here to trial, a good deal of your time would be taken up. I am credibly informed that the language used on the docks at Grimsby is habitually somewhat strong: but the plaintiff is the only person who has taken serious notice of it. If ever there was a case in which it can be said that the words spoken were mere vulgar abuse, and not a serious slanderous talk, then this is that case.” What caused all the trouble? It was due to the Company trying to get their money before it was due, and when application was made for the ship to be released, they were told a bankers’ draft was on its way. Yet they actually declined to let the ship go into the dry dock for essential repairs which were necessary before the holidays. He reminded the jury that the only third person who heard what was said was Mr Alward, and that the remarks carried outside the Board room were carried by the plaintiff himself. Outside the Board room defendant never mentioned to a soul what had taken place. There had never been a personal reflection upon plaintiff; and the only effect of a verdict for plaintiff would be to put money in plaintiff’s pockets and the lawyers’ pockets without affecting plaintiff’s character at all, because his integrity had never been questioned. It was a great pity that these three business men in a Board room did not close the incident within the walls of the room. He suggested the bringing of the action was to whitewash the company, and to do it their secretary had brought the case.

Defendant then gave evidence. Mr Muller, he said, complained that plaintiff having been two hours late in the appointment he made, had caused the ship to miss docking. He thereupon rung plaintiff up, and asked if the ship could be docked. Lister replied that he was waiting for a cheque, and he asked witness to give a guarantee; but witness declined. It was untrue that he accused anyone of fraudulent methods.

ADMITTED HE WAS ANGRY

In cross-examination Mr Moody fully held his own against Mr Lewis Thomas. “I never read what was on the paper, because Mr Lister was flourishing it about in a very excited manner,” he said. “All Mr Lister said to me was, “I am not going to let you call me a _________ shuffler.”

Mr Moody was here shown a piece of paper upon which part of what was alleged to have been said was written down, and he exclaimed emphatically,

“That is not the piece of paper upon which he wrote in my presence.”

“Then you are suggesting that Mr Lister is bolstering up his case with some fraudulent paper,” suggested Mr Thomas.

“I am not suggesting anything,” replied Mr Moody icily.

Weren’t you angry because the ship was not dry docked? – Yes.

Very angry? – Yes.

And so in your anger you went round the next morning to the Board room? – No. I went because I couldn’t understand the position.

Take that document in your hand once more, and read out to me such of the words you used, if any.

After perusing the paper, Mr Moody retorted with emphasis: “I never used a single word that is down here.”

Did you use any adjectives? – No, I didn’t.

Did you call him a shuffler? – No.

A fraud? – No.

Thieving ways? – No, and I never heard it suggested.

All this is imagination, is it? – I don’t say that Mr Alward used a good many of the words, and perhaps he (plaintiff) got mixed up.

Did you say you would go on the docks and say how the business was done? – No I did not.

Whatever you did say referred to the way the Danneborg was detained? – Yes.

And you thought Lister was responsible for detaining it? – No I didn’t.

His Lordship, in summing up, said the jury had had the advantage of having two champion swearing J.P.s of Lincolnshire. Nobody could touch Mr Alward until now, when Mr Moody came on the scene: Mr Alward had to haul down his flag, and Mr Moody was the better man (laughter). The jury had to conclude in their own minds whether the words were used, whether they imputed dishonesty to the plaintiff, and whether they were words which, having been heard by Mr Alward, led him to the conclusion that dishonesty was imputed against the plaintiff.

After an absence of 70 minutes the jury returned with a verdict for the plaintiff with one farthing damages, and his Lordship, after a short argument with counsel, ordered each party to pay their own costs, go home wiser men, and use better language.

From the Sheffield Daily Independent/Hull Daily Mail – 4 June 1909