DISTURBERS PUNISHED

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 68, 13 December 1919, Page 9

DISTURBERS PUNISHED

♦- . ECOB OF A POLITICAL MEETING TWO MEN FINED Tho Magistrate's Court was crowded yesterday morning, when William ■ Jlallard and Thomas • Holding were charged with didturbinff a public meetinij. The offences arose out of a recent political meeting which was beiiiß addressed by Sir. F. Pirani, Liberal candidate for Wellington Central, at the Alexandra Hall, Abel Smith Street. The meeting was a particularly rowdy one, and after duo warning Mallard and Holding were ejected, and at the instigation of the candidate had their names taken.

Mr. W. G. Eiddell, S.M., was on the bench. Tho prosecution was conducted bv Sub-Inspector Emerson, and Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared for the defendants. The case ngainet Mallard, was taken first, and opened with tho evidence of "Sergeant Butler, who stated that he was present at the candidate's meeting on the night of December i. and saw the defendant, who was interjecting. In consequence of representations made by tho candidate, witness, 'took measures to have., the interjectors warned, and the defendant, was advised to refrain from his remarks. It was' difficult, owing to the noise, to hear esaotly wliat the defendant wa3 saying; nevertheless, he was doiup; a lot of shouting. When the canj didate referred to the knowledge ho had that ho was gointr to receive support from a, number of watersidcrs and their wives, and that as tho .voting was secret, no one would know how they voted, tho defendant arose and* said: "I bet you ,£lO that ithe ballot' is not eecret." The chairman of the meeting (Mr. Fuller) asked the defendant to keep his questions and remarks till question time, but he refused to do eo, and in consequence of further trouble was ejected. He returned asain later, and was again ejected because of his interjections. ■ In the course of his cross-examination counsel asked: Did there appear to bo anyone present who was a.supporter of Mr. Pirani? Witness: Yes; wo got a cheer when we put this man out. Did you hoar a sort of falsetto voice in the hall?—" No." , Was it not a fact thait there was someone in the audience-practising ventriloquism, and that tho defendant was getting the blame for it ?—"I don't know about tho ventriloquist, but I do know that the defendant did interject on a number of occasions and stood up." Constables Hollis and Henry'supported the evidence of the previous wit; ness.- . ', ~

•Frederick Pirani said that he gave a written authority to the police to prosecute and eject those who wero unduly interrupting the proceedings. Tho ■authority was signed by him, followed bv the titTb J.P., and the reference to the fact that he was a candidate for the seat. The.mooting was very disorderly, and there were men present who persistently called for "Three cheers for Semple." Some of those present even commenced to conducit a little meeting of their own. He knew the defendant and had seen him at nearly all of Ilia meetings. He had warned defendant personally that he was committing an offencn by interjecting and disturbing tha meeting. As the man persisted witness directed the police to eject him. The defendant returned, and on one occasion stood "up and announced to the audience that he was noE afraid to be seen and called for "Three cheers for Semple." He was again ejected.

To Mr. O'Leary: Witness was.positive that tho defendant was tho culprit, as he had seen him often, and-in fact defendant practically shadowed witness. In'-regard to the instruction to the police counsel asked: Did yon givo that notice to the police a 9 a J.P. or as a candidate? Witness: You can take it which way you- like. Were you disturbed at your meeting? —'■'I was disturbed in the eense that I could not deliver my speech." What did the defendant 'do?—"He called for cheers for Semple and harangued the meeting.", i-. Yes; but w'hat did his harangue consist of ?—"Buncombe." ■ (Laughter.) Like the candidate's?—"No; not on this occasion; it was unlike the candidate's." (Laughter.) In .answer to further questions the witness said that tho defendant was the worst offender ho had known. The dufemlant made t'he most noise. . ' Any possibility of a mistake, Mr. Pimm?—"Mistake this man! Pick him out of n million." . Witness had seen the defendant at at least one of his previous meetings. ■ "What doing?" asked counsel. . "Doing?" replied witness. "Oh, nothing,, as usual." (Laughter.) , , On behalf of the defendant • counsel raid that his client did nothing more than to make rational interjections and refutations, which were quite in order. Mallard had only been at one meetine previously and had not shadowed Mr. Pirani. H« had not gone to the meeting with the intention of .organising others to oppose Mr. Pirani, and he did nothing in the matter of calling for cheers for Mr. Semple. All that defendant- did was to , refute irritating stfiteuitn'ts made by the candidate. The defendant then gave evidence, during the course of which he said that the candidate referred to "Paddy" Webb, and his remarks did not 6uit, "so I up and said: 'Don't call him'"Paddy," but call him "Pat,"'" He was then ejected, but returned again. The defendant admitted that his ejectment on the second occasion was due 'to his challenge. ' ~ • The, Magistrate: How many times did you interject? Defendant: About ten or twelve times. Sub-Inspector Emerson: Don't vou think it is a fair thing to give a candidate a fair hearing? Defendant: Yes, provided he does not side-track the audience. In fining the defendant i 3 and costs fls., in default seven days' imprisonment, the Mayistra'te enid that interruptions ■at such meetings could be carried beyond tho border, and if persons carried their interruptions to such a degree then they must bo prepared to 'take the conseouences. The defendant was not the onlv person who disturbed a public meeting in Wellington, but by his actions ho had run the risk, and thereby must suffer the ponalty. Tt was the intention of the prosecution to call the chairman of the meeting as evidence, but Mr. Puller intimated to tho Court that he had not been subjieonaed, and had remained in the Court during thn hearing of tho case. His evidence was not, therefore, taken.

The circumstances in the case of Holdine were similar, but he had given less cause for complaint, and when ejected he remained outside.

In his evidence tho candidate stated that his reference to Webb wns that if hn (witness) had acted as Webb had done in suppressing his loyalty and exnroKsinpf his feelbig'and in criticising thfl Defence admini?li'atinn. he, too, would li.ivp been with Webb.

The defendant declined to take the oath, but made a declaration that he would sneak tho truth. .He said that what led him to iiiterjeot was -that he was a useful person, whereas tho candidate was not. '

His Worship remarked that he was satisfied that Holding had played his part in disturbing tho meeting, but hid not been so prominent as Mallard. Holding would be fined .£2, and costs 9s. Mr. Pirani did not claim expenses.