INDECENT BATHING.

Evening Star, Issue 7828, 8 February 1889, Page 2

INDECENT BATHING.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— With reference to the case of the Police v. Hazlett for indecent bathing, which appeared in your paper of this evening, permit me to state that a curious case was tried at Edinburgh some time ago. It was an appeal against a conviction by one of the sheriff substitutes of Forfarshire of two or three respectable lads for bathing in the Northesk, near Brechin Castle, a residence of the Marquis of Dalhousie, better known as Lord Panmure. The sham crime of which they were convicted was "Indecent ex posure of the person, to the annoyance of the lieges," and their punishment was a fine of L2 each or ten days' imprisonment. The Lord Justice Clerk and Lord Neaves, however, reversed the sentence of the sheriff substitute, and ordered the fines to be repaid, and found the fiscal who had presented them liable in twelve guineas of expenses. They pointed out that, while indecent exposure in private for the purpose of destroying the morals of young persons, or in public to the disregard of modesty and shame, was criminal, yet undressing was not so in all circumstances, more particularly when bathing was the object. The Lord Justice Clerk asked if it would be an aggravation of the offence if, in going to bed, one were to forget to lock the door ; and Lord Neaves, in a humorous sentence or two in the course of a rather philosophical speech, described exposure of the person as in many cases laudable, and observed that, in his opinion, a bather did not require to take excessive care that he should not be seen. "If he were bathing a mile or two along the shore from any house, and a lady chose, through a reconnoitring glass, to look at him from motives of physiological curiosity or othor motives, it was her own fault if she saw what she ought not to see."—l am, etc., James Caldwell. Dunedin, February 8.