"RESPECTABILITY."

Auckland Star, Volume VI, Issue 1605, 6 April 1875, Page 2

"RESPECTABILITY."

We may be permitted to refer with some brevity to the fc&se yesterday decided in the .Police Court in Which one of the proprietors of this journal was involved, as illustrative of social ethics, and of the pecttliar features of Auckland iife. ■ As a preliminary it is well to refer to ef ents antecedent. Abotit three years ago that portion of Upper Shortland-street where stand the old foundations iff a once projected theatre and hotel, the ground was uHfenced and the potition dangerous to life and limb ; so much so that a man fell over and was seriously hurt, thereupon the City Council gavfe notice to the proprietors of the ground that a fencing' ttiilsii be erfected for public safety. Mr Thomas Eussell, the principal of the three proprietors—Mr Mackelvie then and still absent being one, and Mr J. S. Macfarlane nominally the other — applied to the proprietors of the EViNING Stali, who were at the time erecting Advertising Boards and hoardings throughout the city and sttburbsy and offered that if they erected a hoarding they should have the exclusive use of it uniil such tirfle' as the plaes was required for building. Accordingly Mr Brett, entering into a formal agreement with Mr Russell, had erected substantial hoarding, costing between fifteen and twenty pounds, and as is known it bas been used ever since by this office for affixing posters. Home five or six months ago Mr J. S. Macfarlane, who it appears is connected with the ground as a *' proprietor," by that relation which is understood as existing between him and various properties, began to dispute that exclusive right, as part of the programme which he had sketched out for his crusade against the Evening Stab. Complaint was at once made to Mr Rugsell, who just then happened to be here, who told Messrs Reed and Brett to "never mind J. ft.," and used those persuasive influences which made that person quiet. Matters remained in stalu quo until within the past month or two, when tho printer, George Jones, having once in afortnight or three weeks, perhaps, got a small poster, and incited doubtless from the wellknown quarter, began placing them on the hoarding. This attemptat interference with our rights was quietly met by affixing the Star posters on the hoarding without any reference to the position, of the intruding bills.

" IDLE WORDS."

On Thursday last, however, it appears Mr J. S. Macfarlane, driven to violence by chagrin at the fruitless result of his crusade, set a man to cut down the hoarding, which was at the time covered with large posters, just affixed by this office. Mr Brett ccrfning down the street and detecting Mr J. S.^Macfarlane and his man jlagrante deliclo, aelc^d by whose authority this was done. Mr B'Jacfarlane, his pent up wrath showing through his glaring eyes and grinding teetb, replied, according to the sworn test'nnny of Mr Brett, " You're a d d cur, you're a fool." or as his friend could alone remember, " You're a by fool." We need not say what the first impulse of a man is when so accosted, but Macfariaue's age protected him, and Mr Brett, to his credit we think, had pity on a helpless aged creature of whom, as is not unusual in age, the untempered passion remains the only vestige of the days of youth and energy. At the same time to prevent the repetition of such provocation, Mr Brett applied to the Police Court—with what result was shown by our yesterday's report of the Police Court. The case was dismissed Mr Beckham stating " that the law did not intend that every idle word should be construed into an offence." THE KULE OV THE ROAD. We do not by any means intend to impugn either the justiceor the wisdom of the Magistrate's decision. He simply interpreted the law, and we accept his interpretation ; and it is on the law being so interpreted that we desire to make a few comments. His Worship said "the language o\ the Act was simply abominable." He was making reference to the wording of the Act, which seemed to imply that unless a breach of the peace occureo", it could not be accepted that the words were calcu lated to provoke a breach of the peace. As Mr Becklwn said, "Something mis*ht h:ive been done, but it was not done." Or as Mr Hesketh, the counsel for Mr Macfarlane, said, "The charge must fail as no breach of the peace bad been committed." We assume that this is correct, and the inference of course is, that in order to prove that language used was provoking, you must show its effect by striking. vTe trust the public will remember this, and that in similar circumstances no person will stupidly come to the Police Court and " find that something might have been done, but it was not done." Let us be more explicit. You are walking along the street and you meet a person, say low in origin low in education and in

habits, and accustomed in the circle in which he moves, to use low language. He playfully uses co you the language to which, he is accustomed. You may have been accustomed to the society of gentlemen, from which persons using blackguard language are excluded. You have unexpectedly addressed to you, d d this or by that. Gentlemanly instincts may prompt you to not make a blackguard of yourself in the public streets, by descending to the conduct that is usual among the class, among which even spitting in a gentleman's face is in en tegle. You may be inclined to pause. But don't. Be quick. Give him one in the mouth and lay him sprawling. " Something might have been done, but it was not done" and your remedy will be taken away, unless you have proved the power of the provocation by knocking the blackguard down. This is to be the social ethics of the streets of Auckland. The knuckles are to decide the nice points of legal distinction, as to what is an offence and what is but an •• idle word."

As we have said we do not impugn either the justice or the wisdom of the magistrate's decision. With the evidence furnished by the defendant's friend, Mr Beckham could hardly "have done otherwise. But the case has not been without its uses, seeing that it has shown what is "respectable" in language, and in what way, according to law, it ought to be redressed.