ARTIST IN COURT
CHARGED WITH ASSAULT TROUBLE O\ER A CARTOON. AND THE PAYMENTS. Arthur Claude Geddis. sub-editor of the Free Lance, and Eccledonne Frederick Hiscocks, black-and-white sketch artist, were the parties engaged in a case which came before Mr. D. G. A. Cooper, S.M.. at to-day's sitting of the Magistrate's Court. The complainant charged Hiscocks with assaulting him on the 27th of last month, and asked for sureties of the peace. Complainant was represented by Mr. A. W. Blair, and defendant by Mr. T. M. Wilford. Hiscocks entered a, plea- of not guilty. Mr. Blair said that Hiscocks was attached to the Free Lance as artist, and he was commissioned to prepare a topical cartoon each week. Just before the alleged assault took place, defendant had been instructed to piepare a cartoon relative to the doings of the Territorials. He came back to the office before the ■cartoon had been completed, and asked for a loan of 10s. This was refused, and the cartoon did not appear. The following week a new artist brought in a drawing which the proprietors purchased. Hiscocks came in later and drew attention to that cartoon which had then been published, and sneered at it. Mr. Geddis quietly told Hiscocks that tliey all had to begin. Hiscocks was decidedly annoyed at this, and hurled vile language at Mr. Geddis within the hearing of members of the staff. He lety aiterwards and came back later, when he committed the assault complained of. There was absolutely no provocation, and the assault was entirely a surprise. Hi&cocks was proud of the assault, and threatened to do the same to Mr. Geddis, senior. Arthur Claude Geddis said that the week before the assault took place Hiscocks came into the office, and was given instructions to prepare a cartoon relative to the Territorial camp at Takapau. On the previous Saturday he had drawn 10s in advance — it was the usual thing for defendant to di'aw money in advance — and later he came back for another 10s. Hiscocks demanded this fuither sum, but it was dehmtely refused. As a result the cartoon was not published. Other arrangements had to be made to fill the paper. Next week an artist unknown to witness brought in a cartoon on the wateredmilk qupslion, and this was accepted as an original drawing. On tho 27th Hiscocks came into the office to see Air. Morton, and commenced sneering at the cartoon which had been publish' cd. Iliscocks suggested that the cartoon had been copied from one of his drawings. Witness said : "I am very sorry. I did not mean to be nasty. All artists have to begin. I have known you to copy." With that Hiscocks worked himself into a passion, and swore violently. Hiscocks said it was "a insult to the best black-and-white artist in the world." With that he went out of the office, and returned a little later with Mr. Morton, when he committed the assault. Both witness's lips were cut, and also the inside of the mouth. Ajter witness had been struck Mr. Morton came between them, and threats Wei'e made to call the police. To Mr. Wilford : Hiscocks had not threatened to repeat the act. Mr. Wilford produced a volume, "Phil May in Australia," and showed a likeness between a cartqon published there and that which appeared in tho Free Lance. He also showed other drawings, and submitted there was an obvious likeness. Witness : Hiscocks was paid £2 2s for tho large cartoon each week. Mr. Wilford : Don't you v know that Hiscocks is a particularly temperamental man — that he is a bundle of nerves? — No._ Didn't you suggest to Hiscocks that he traced some of his drawings? — No. Isn't it a fact that Hiscocks completely lost his head when you made some statement" to him, whatever tliat staement was, and did not know what he was doing? — I would not say that. Wnen Hiscocks came back, did not he say to Mr. Morton : "He has accused me of tracing. He must take those words back." — No, I did not hear that. Will you swear that he said nothing to you when he entered the room? — Yes. It is possible that if he used those words, you would have forgotten them? — I don t think so. Such words would have impressed themselves upon me. Would you say that Hiscocks was under the influence of drink when he struck you? — No, I wouldn't say that. To Mr. Blair: He thought the cartoon was original when he accepted it. Frank Morton, journalist, said that while in Panama-street on the date of the alleged assault he saw Hiecocks rush out of the Free Lance office. Ho was in a rage, and said bo had been, accused of tracing, and that it was come sort of an insult. (Hiscocks went back almost immediately and went into Mr. Geddis's room. When witness went into tho room he saw Hiscocks leaning over Mr. Geddis. He did not nee tho actual assault. To Mr. Wilford : Hiscocks was a man ■who would "go off" over comparative trifles He was a man of violent affections and violent <lishke&. It would be an insult to accuse an artist of tracing. Tracing was pure theft. Witness was positive that Hiscocks stated that ho had been accused, of tracing. THE DEFF/NCE. After the luncheon adjournment, Mr. Wilford proceeded to outline the defence. He wished to draw attention to section 75 of the Crimes Act which stated that provocation could be by blows, words, or gesture. Section 15 of the Justice of the Peace Act provided that if complainant had no just cause to fear, the case could be dismissed. His Worship: 1 don't think you need discuss the question of sureties of the peace. Mr. Wilford : Very well. We contend that Mr. Geddis accused Mi 1 . Hiscocks of professional piracy and theft. That does not seem very bad to us. If you said to a man who wrote: "You write and trace pictures." that would not bo att insult; hut if you said to the same man: "You copy other people's work and aign your own name to it." the position would be different. The circumstances must be taken into consideration. Nobody regrets more than Mi. Hiscocks what occurred. Mr. Hiscoeks admits that he struck Mr. Geddis — took the law in his own hands. Mr. Hiscocks was very sorry, but could not let the case go with the suggestion that he coinrni*itea the assault without giving due warning. Mr. Geddis had a punch, but there was intense provocation — the intensestof provocation. In regard to the borrowing of the money, and leaving the paper in the lurch : there was nothing in that. He told Mr Geddis on the Tuesday that he could draw the cartoon him-s-elf—or words to that effect- and the usual day for supplying the cartoon was Wednesday. The paper was only put to a cert-am amount of inconvenience. The defendant stated that ho joined the Free Lance when the paper started. Then he left for a while, "owing to some dishonest dealings," and joined again later. On the Tuesday of tho week previous to the assault he went into the Free Lance office in regard to that_ week's cartoon. Witness was paid so little that ho stipulated that the editor should provide the ideas. However, when ho asked for the advance of 10s this was lefused. Witneos then went out and collected £4 owing to
him, went back to the office, and told the complainant he could draw the cartoon himself. That week a cartoon appeared in the paper, which appeared to bo a tracing of another drawing which had been shown him. He then "visited the Free Lance again, and told complainant that the caitoon was a tracing. Geddis replied : "You trace yourself sometimes. "With that." continued witness, "I flared up. and I don't quite know what happened.'' He admitted that he had punched Geddis, and really felt provoked and insulted at the remark made to him. He had been n, good fellow to the paper ; had practically made it. in fact. "If it had not been for me," lie said, "I don't think the paper would be going now.' 1 Mr. Blair : You think that the existence of the Free Lance is due to your ideas? Or is it only your drawings? Witness : Well, 1 have eriven Kleas often, and good ones, too, I think. Mr. Blair : Did you draw in advance on this cartoon ?— Yes. This is the I O.U. ?— Yes. Havo you redeemed it? — No, why should I? It is not likely that I would. Did you produce the drawing at all? — It was partly finished. Mr. Blair produced an advertisement with a drawing as part of it. "Is this yours?" he asked. "Yes, that is mine," was the reply." "Ib it original?" asked Mr. Blair.— "Not inecessarily so." Sometimes, said defendant, he had instructions to copy when producing an advertisement for a merchant. Mr. Blair : You often have to copy various figures, don't you? — "Well, I don't know the prevailing fashions for women, and if I want to draw a hat or n gown I often consult a fashion journal." FINE OF £2 IMPOSED. His_ Worship said the case was plain, aa Tliscocks had admitted the offence. As Hiscocks was a man of such a temperamental nature, he ouerht to try >nd control himself better. He thought the assault was" a rather cowardly one, and he would impose a fine of £2, with costs amounting to £1 Is.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/EP19140629.2.120
Bibliographic details
Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 152, 29 June 1914, Page 6
Word Count
1,592ARTIST IN COURT Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 152, 29 June 1914, Page 6
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Evening Post. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.