A BATHTUB FROLIC.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 114, 15 May 1926, Page 38

A BATHTUB FROLIC.

WET OR DRY PARTY? 8 Indicted for perjury as an aftermath — bt his bathtub party. Earl Carroll, theatrical producer, was confronted with the jg prospect of a heavy fine and imprison- | pient. " . I * A Federal grand jury hp.s indicted him J fen six counts for swearing that the party ! jDn Feb. 2'.i was dry. an dthat there was J to one, nude or otherwise, in a bathtub ' filled with liquid, variously described as l fruit juice, al<\ and wine. The j grand jury believed the testimony of other ■witnesses that the party was wet, and I that somebody had a bath. J The maximum penalty on each count •■ bt the indictment is five years' imprison- ; tnent and 2000 dollars fine. It lies within 1 the discretion of the court whether sen- ; tences on ear-h conviction may run sue- ' cessively, which would mean a maximum '" pf SO years' imprisonment, or concurrently. t Carroll, who Is producer of several ' Broadway shows featuring feminine * beauty, was arrested after the indictment g Was returned. lie pleaded not guilty and J; furnished 2500 dollars bond. * Among the witnesses who appeared i kefore the grand jury was Joyce Hawley, \ • show girl, who retained a lawyer to s bring suit for 1000 dollars against Carroll, I Which she said he promised her for her i bath. Tie producer gave her 20 dollars ; and told her to forget it, she said, several \ Weeks ago, s