MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LIII, Issue 76, 31 March 1919, Page 4

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

(Before Mr J. B. Evans, BJM.)

BREACH OF RRUHIBITIOiN Oil OCR

At the Magls-fate's Court to-day, Robert Fail ling pleaded guiity to a charge of procuring liquor during the currency of a prohibition order, and was finedill, with '(» costs. Defendant B ated that he went to the booth at the races and had a drink.

ALLEGRO JJHSTU RBAN CE OF A MHETiJNG. 1 Three informations were laid arising out ol the recent prohibition meeting addressed by Mr Todd and Father Cronin, The defendants were New ton FfosV George Wm. Rutf, and John Wm. Lovett. Frost and Lovett were charged with disturbing a meeting and counting 'dot ' Ruff Was charged' wi hj disturbing a meeting. Mr Hayes, Whb appeared lor the defendants, stated That m regard -o Rutf, the nature of the alleged offence, was not sta ed in the charge, die complained that he did hot know what lie had lo meet The Magistrate said the charge could be altered alter hearing evidence .Senior Sergeant Barrett said he would add to the charge frequent interruptions and counting but.' The J charge : against Ruff wa s then proceeded with. •_ Thomas A. H. Field gave evidence that fie was (Chairman >of a prohibition meeting at the Theatre Royal on February UOthv Father ’Cronin 1 and Mr Todd were the speakers, and the meet- - prohibition party. In introducing the speakers he called for a fair hearing. He did not

anticipate any trouble, but the meeting %ag verv noisy betore the speakers commenced. The meeting throughout was very noisy. He asked for order Several times. He could not see who i was disturbing the meeting. 1 Cross-examined : He- could hear where 'the noise came from. The noise ap peared to come mainly from under the gallery. There was not as much noise from the doors near the stage as fromj under the gallery. There were some inter j ectioiis fro hi the 'doors and a little some now© from the stage. He did not see Mr Todd make a rush irom the table towards the wing. He did not order a Returned soldier named tO puF’dut. Both the speaker*'were very good-humoured. _ towards the close of his speech, Father Cronin said he was getting a very good hearing. Father Cronin invited the audience to bet. -■ Several took ‘ bets. There was not more noise while Father Cronin was talking about betting than before: ; ■■ . .... To ©Jfrgeant Barrett: He had the greatest difficulty m securing even A semblance of order at times. 1 ThomhS Bettis stated that he was one of the’Committee Which organised the meeting. 'Before the speakers arrived the meeting had a very lively lone, especially in the pit. He found the disj turbance was well scattered' through the pit, as if pre-arranged. He sat in the centre of the pit: ■’■•'’He ''cautioned quite a numher of people. He knew the defendant, who was in the pit. He asked' a policeman to remove a man who was particularly obstructive, and the policeman said he could do nothing without die chairman's instruction. He then asked the chairman to announce that the disturbance must cease or "Vur naihes of disturbers would be handed to the police. The chairman announced that the police would be called on to do -their duty. Witness returned to the pit and said, “iou've had. a good innings, lads,” and Requested - -hem to keep quiet, give the speaker a chance, j and uphold .Nelson's good name. The disturbance'betore this was -general, and’ there* were many insulting remarks, (Defendant ‘ was interjettmg, and called out a lot. He told defendant that if he interrupted further he would've removed; ' 'Defendant’s temftrKS iivterjecttons were a. disturbance. * Defendant. Was very pronounced it “counting' 6uV* The noise was an absolute disgrace to Nelson—it was one ot the "worst - meetings he had known in Nelson iir the las' 40 years. iGrbss-examined : ' Cdnutihg-ouF occurred at least a dozen times during the'faeeting. r v He ordered'the removal of * perhaps, half-a-dozen people.. Apart from the pit the meeting, was generally 'though there ‘were* some -interjections from the doorways. • itobert Watson f gare- evidence that ho w&s ' at *'! he • ’meeting. He knew defendant Huff, and saw him m the pit. Huff's conduct; was very noisy, and he appeared to be one of the leadera in the count-out. He saw Ruff with bowl hands to his mouth, and counting out.. Witness cautioned Ruff, who gave him impudence. Huff disturbed from beginning to end of - the meeting. ' Cross-examined: There was an organised .mob in the pit, probably 21), rootid Ruff. He noticed Lovett near Huff Huff and Lovett were generally together, and they had disturbed every prohibition meeting. ■ ( Mr Jhtayes objected to this statement. TTie Magistrate said if the evidence showed a system of disturbance it was admissible. , ‘ Witness said he had warned Ruff and Lovett at previous prohibition meetings. fStewart was ordered out. The pit ; was well lighted. J* Constable Berthelsen gave evidence that Huff was singing out. He did not hoar Ruff counting out. Huff interrupted Mr Todd. He' heard Mr f ettit . warn Huff. The meeting was _ a noisy one, j Ruff left the pit when witness ordered j Haase out, and after that’ was very quiet. He stood up in the pit and spoke to the crowd generally to quieten down. -Ho had never heard of any orj ganisation to disturb the *” meeting. * Ruff's interruptions did not* disturb the speaker, but they helped to disturb, the meeting. . ' j Cross-examined: iMy Todd lost ins temper attd‘ challenged the audience. "Bather Cronin wag good-humoured. The’ fcrowd seemed to object to information about America and wanted New Zealand figures. He saw Mr Todd go jto the wing and witness thought there was going to be trouble and he went to the stage, J Constable Burn heard Huff interjecting and singing out, but it was nothing put Of ' the way. 'Witness was standing [at the door. , ’ I Cross-examined: Highly respectable citizens were also interjecting that'they did' not want America, but New Zealand; ■ ' ■' - 1 -' ': v , ‘ t This closed the ca.se for the prosecujtion. [ Mr Hayes: Is there a case to answer? The’ Magistrate: Oh, yes, undoubteddefendant, in evidence, said he did not 'h«ar any counting out 'before t he speakers’ started. There wa® a lot of “devilment” in the pit. Mr Fettit dnnbhrteed that anyone he pointed' * to Tbe put oiiF by the polifce. Mi Watson said ‘“Huff' and Will be the next.**’ He then * walked out. He dehled 'putting his hands’to'hi? iWh 'and' hotlfertng 1 out. He objected to Amendin' figures, but did’nofe'interject' iii regard to them. **’ 11 : Cross-examined i * MHe went out be cause he was denounced . '’’by, r MF’Wat Son: He heard 'counting olfl. not true 'that be had prey? bus prohibition meetings 1 ;' H#* 1 atteftd'fe'c Ml prohibition meetings. . He- was at- M; BVanklyrt’a open-air meetings : bnl i di< net remember 1 calling '"6 nt' f ‘"ftii ittsulthif I remark. He was 1 not prepared to sa;j

it it was an orderly meeting on the 20th February, as 'here had been a lot of talk about it. Alber, John Stewart paid he attended the meeting. Before the meet* mg he knew nothing about an organised gang. Afterwards he heard something abouv an organised gang. Ruff was three or four seats behind witness. Mr Todd was quoting American figures and from * all parts of the half' there went up a cry of "Don't give 'us America.” tie heard Ttutf make only ■-wo interjections, which witness did not consider disturbed the meeting. The Magistrate said the evidence on on© side was very emphatic, the chairman had to call for ordbr about'a dozen times, and the aid of the police had to be called in. The meeting wa® characterised as a disorderly one. The evidence of two or three Who saw a man disturbing a meeting wa® worth more than the evidence of hfty people wfio did no: see it. The defence was a weak denial of the offence. - It wa®r- clear that the meeting was disturbed and that the defendant was one of the disturbers. . , Mr Hayes said this wa& the nrst prosecution of the -kind within his knowledge. ‘ 'The Magistrate said that one party had advertised that it wa® not responsible for what "happened at the meeting. That showed that he meeting was a disorderly one.' It wa« clear that therv was a marked disturbance, and it wa® a pity that a man could nof come and place his views before the oh a' most important matter *on which the people should hear both sides. People were entitled to give views on either side, and to be beard. The meeting' was rhost disorderly, in fact, the" Condncfr approached hoodlumism. Ho was S®" mg to impose a substantial 'penalty, so that the proceedings would be a- warning. Defendant would be Bned £5, with -7s costs 'The case against Frost w.as then called on, when Mr Hayes said that m view of the decision In Huff’s case it was of no use going through the" • same defence again. Frost would piend guilty. Frost was fined £5, with- 7s costs.