DISTURBING A CIRCUS.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLVI, Issue 75, 25 March 1912, Page 7

DISTURBING A CIRCUS.

OBSCENE LANGUAGE USED.

4 disturbance which occurred -»'. Bidgw&y Brothers' Circus perio-.m #iuce in Blenheim on Thursday niglit was the subject of a prosecution in the Magistrate's Court on Saturday a young man juaxned Joseph Kett being charged with having used' ohS'jOTi-3 language. The accused pleaded, not .guilty. Sergeant Hr.nson called' as witnesses William Woods, -Klie ring-maß>?r, Bud Crawford, of the proprietary, and J. McLennan, a member of the circus staff, 'heir evidence being to the effect thub between 10.15 >md 10.30 o'clock, when the performance "had reached its last stage, the accused and others with him actively interested themselves in the challenge issued by the ring-master to any of the spectators to ride a buokjumpor. , The accused, who arrived1 at the vn- < tertainment at a lat© hour, and. was ', under the influence of liquor, oatm* "' forward and -said he would ride the horse, adding the objectionable wor-is in the hearing of a large number of men,, women, and children. . A disturbance ensued, and one man was thrown out of the tent. Mr Crawford said he reckoned that the accused's conduct spoiled the *iu<iceeding night's business to>;t-h© extent of £10 or £15. Mr R. S. FJorance, S.M., said that that was a m-itter for a odvil action. X.nd had nothing to do with this prosecution. Constable Qirayle gave evidence t>s - to being called to the circus by the proprietors in connection with the disturbance. He saw tlie accused about the town between 9 and 11 o'clock that night. The accused wasslightly under the influence of liquor, "biit the witness had no occasion io speak to him. The accused called in his defence George Windloburn, who said he was with Kett all the timo, and did n»t hear him use the language imputod to him! The defendant never instigated- the disturbance; another mm whose name, he did not know, but whoes recent address in town he gave, was the prime mover. A good deil of gbsoene language was used, bafc not by the accused. *, Samuel Drylen, who was in the- ae- . eused's company, gave corrbboratifc-e evidence, with the exception that lie said he did not hear any obscene jungrtAge at all. • • His Worship said that there were elements in the evidence for the pros*.) cution which pointed, to the fact that the-three witnesses called! by Sergeant Hanson told the truth, and that discredited the evidence called by the ao cused. He described the offence.as a most reprehensible one, ' which 'h**. Legislature .and the Courts view.-*?, -with, great displeasure. The influence of liquor was no excuse. He inflicted a fine of £5, with costs of Uie witnesses for the prosecution and Court costs lls. These witnesses inti mated thi&t they would not claim ex.penses. Three months were allowed for the payment of the fine, on Mie . request of accused, an alternative of three months' imprisonment being fixed.