REV. HOWARD ELLIOTT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLII, Issue 1012, 3 November 1917, Page 7

REV. HOWARD ELLIOTT.

STRONG REMARKS BY A MAGISTRATE. (Pm Pmcfifl Association.) AUCKLAND. Nov. 2. The charges against diaries Christopher Clements and Herbert Eugene MeEntce of assaulting Rev. Howard Elliott were heard by Air E. 11. Frazer, S.M., in the Police Court to-day. The information was laid by Howard Elliott, for whom Mr Ostler appeared. Counsel said it was significant that the assault -was committed when Mr Elliott was leaving his house to speak at it meeting of the Protestant Political Association. Ho understood the defence was that Clements had been provoked by a statement attributed to Elliott, but, ho contended, ibis provocation was not a sound defence. He denied that Elliott had published any statement reflecting on the relatives of Clements, the matter being contained in a letter written by and addressed to Elliott himself to test the censorship. The contents wore first revealed by counsel at Iho postal enquiry, but were not actually published until they wore read by the Hon.

A. L. Ilerdman in Parliament. Referring to tho assault, Mr Ostler said that Clements had employed two men to hold Elliott’s arms while he committed the, assault. The truth of the matter was mat the assault was an attempt to prevent (ho right of free speech and, if not put down, such lawlessness might easily result in reprisals against tiic civil law. Evidence was then given by the driver of a taxicab who, -while waiting to take Elliott to the meeting, witnessed the assault, and by throe neighbours who were attracted to the scene by the scuffle. When the last of those witnesses entered the box Elliott left the Court, and this witness having given his evidence, Mr Ostler said that that concluded the case. Mr J. It. Reed, who appeared for the accused, remarked : “Elliott has funked it itnd slunk out of the Court. It is cowardly to avoid going into the box, and is in accordance with his actions in attacking a dead woman.” The Magistrate said he understood Mr Reed’s surprise. Mr Root! was entitled to make, any "statement ho thought lit in mitigation of the offence, and anything Mr Rei'd said lie would have to accept as true, and it would go out to the general public «is true. Mr Ostler: “Whatever Elliott said does not justify the assault.” Mr Reed added that when a man would deliberately leave the Court to avoid answering questions on oalli concerning the provocation 1m had given to the young man and his family, it must be clear to the Court and the public that he would not substantiate the grossly untrue statements lie had made. Proceeding with the defence, Mr Reed said that at tho posta enquiry Klliott julniitk'd having rcfciiou during a meeting in the Town Hall to the drowning of a nun, the sister of Clements, and suggesting that certain facts regarding her health had been suppressed at the inquest. Elliott subsequently represented to the Ministers’ Association that the statements wore true. Mr Ostler said : "Personally I am willing to admit that the suggestions regarding the chastity of the nun were untrue. At tins stage the charge against MeKntce was dismissed, the Magistrate ruling that there was no evidence against him. . Mr Kni/.or also ruled that in Ihe absence of Elliott he must presume that he made the statements attributed to him. _ _ [n giving judgment Mr I*razor said. “Elliott has made a statement about Clements’ dead sister winch 1 am satisfied is absolutely untrue. It looks as if Mr Elliott in his zeal to combat the activities of the Roman Catholic Church has cast aside all considerations of prudence and ordinary decency. The man who makes use of siii-li statements for political or any other ends is committing an act of which, 1 hope, no decent man, let alone a nuninter of religion, would bo guilty. I can only sav that, speaking as a man, Chunk that Elliott in making the statement m public behaved like a low cad. and. speakinc as a man again, 1 am satisfied that lie deserved all ho got and a good deal more. Clements wanted to clear bis dead sister > name of the imputations cast upon it, and lu> deliberately committed a breach ol the law to get the matter ventilated. 1 grant that Clements’ action was the only way to do so.” The Magistrate continued: lam very sorrv indeed that it is my duty to enter a conviction against Clements. My sympathies are entirely with him, but I must not allow that lo run away with what i., a correct exposition of the law. Mi Idhoit s conduct is such that, although it does not disentitle him to the protection of the law. it will entitle Clements lo the sympathy of tho average man. Finally, Mr Frazer said, he would o. tc a conviction, though he was sorry he h.u. to do so, but he would not inflict am fui th Hr P o"tler’s application for costs was refused.