ELECTION ECHO

Evening Star, Issue 23094, 21 October 1938, Page 12

ELECTION ECHO

MR W. A. BODKIN'S MEETING FURTHER POLICE COURT PROCEEDINGS A further echo of Mr W. A. Bodkin’s election meeting in the Town Hall on September 28 last was heard in the Police Court this morning, when William George Pullar was charged with behaving in a disorderly manner iii a public place on September 28. The defendant, who was represented by Mr O. G. Stevens, pleaded not guilty. Senior-sergeant Claasen, outlining the case, said that it arose out of Mr Bodkin’s election address on September 28. Defendant came under the notice of Constable Quirk, and was cautioned by the constable for persistently interjecting. Defendant’s companion desisted, but defendant did not, and he was taken from the ball. Defendant called out, “ I was just laughing; can’t a mail laugh?-”-and he repeated this about a dozen times. The Senior Sergeant added that it was a fact that Puller's noise was mainly raucous, derisive laughter, which contributed to the obstruction of the speaker. The defendant said subsequently he had four beers, which may have been a possible reason for his behaviour.

Evidence along these lines was given by Constable Quirk. Mr Stevens (to witness): “ Didn’t the speaker take the crowd on, and didn’t he give as good as he got?” “ Yes, but the odds were about 400 to 1 against him.” “ When he invited these people to squeal, they did squeal?”—” That is correct.” “ I’m going to put it to you,” said Mr Stevens to the constable, “ that the speaker used language that was provocative—you wouldn’t have used the same language.” ‘‘l don’t think so,” replied the constable.

“ You wouldn’t have used it as a man with ordinary common sense?” asked Mr Stevens, pressing the question, the constable's reply being, “ But he wasn’t —he was a politician.” (Laughter.) Re-examined by Senior-sergeant Claasen, Constable Quirk said that, roughly, half of the public were orderly. The other portion was disorderly in varying degrees, but only a few were as bad as Pullar.

Inspector Roach also gave evidence as to having attended' the meeting and having his attention drawn to the noise being made by Pullar. Mr Stevens said that the position was most unfortunate for the defendant, and he felt it very much appearing before the court. He was a married man with two children. It was the first meeting he attended. Counsel contended that the speaker’s remarks only invited less educated people whose views were different from his to create a disturbance. He contended that the language and attitude of the speaker were provocative. The trouble in which defendant was concerned did not take place till 9.15, and he was carried away by the rest of the people. Evidence was given by the defendant, who said that he was surprised when he was asked to leave the hall, because he had merely sung out with the rest. After he had been remonstrated with by the superintendent he desisted, and when about 150 people got up to leave the hall witness did likewise, and that was when he was approacned by a constable. There was an uproar at the time. The hearing was adjourned till the afternoon.