INCIDENT AT A PUBLIC MEETING

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LVI, 28 November 1922, Page 5

INCIDENT AT A PUBLIC MEETING

COURT PROCEEDINGS Arising out of an incident at the Theatre Royal on November 9, -when an address on, the liquor question was delivered -by the Rev. W. Heathcote, a young man named Hubert Reginald Holdaway Was charged at the Magistrate’s Oqurt to-day with disturbing the meeting, r- , -The information was laid under- -the. Police Offences Art, 19Q8. f, Mr Hayes appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Seninr-Sergt. Barrett prosecuted. • . . ■ " Senior-Sergt. Barrett .in opening said ‘ defendant was put out of the meeting At the instance of the chairmen. But independent of a chairman the police ■could act if they thought a disturbance had been caused. Such cases in Nelson were few and far between. He called, ’ , William Burrell, manager oi Ihe ‘ Theatre Royal, who said lie was present at the meeting, and let the hall to the Moderate League. Defendant was sitting. in (the third row, of tip-up seals. Witness said* ho heard defendant interrupting, questioning the speaker’s remarks. -He could not remember the nature of the remarks. To the Bench: He was about 40 feet awajt'. from defendant at one lime and within 3 feet at another. Continuing, witness said the iuterjecHons commenced about. ? half-on-hom-ed ter the meeting started.. ’Lie, ..chairman was appealed to at one stage by members of the audience to atop the ffiSorjectioms, which were continuous they started and continued until the end of- the meeting. , , N To the Bench: Defendant’s interjections were continuous until the, end ofthe meeting. ./■ Proceeding, witness said he could not say that the chairman appealed to defendant ihdividually. The chairman

said the police had his authority to re-, ffiove anyone disturbing the meeting. Finally defendant was removed.. Witness did not. appeal to defendant to be quiet, and he went out quietly, after firirfc asking why-he had to leave. - - Wtiness in reply to the Police, said <tW. at the finish he considered de- ■ jfendant’a conduct was sufficient for him Ito be removed. A large section of the -■crowd was hostile to defendant, and resentment was shown more than once. The Bench f And why?—On account of the interjections, and to the chairman, not having the interjector removed or quietened. ' ' Continuing, witness said there was • shown to defendant who had aWftood spin.” Tfche police‘naked witness what was the chairman’s attitude, but Mr Hayes objected to the question, and was upheld by the Bench, To Mr Hayes: The keeping of order -iti, the Theatre had’ nothing to do with him. , . Why were you sp prominent, then?— In what way? ' You were in a conspicuous part 01, the theatre and were moving about.— Yes. I was trying to get seats for the’ people.' ■ ~ , . ; iAnd you-had: no other object in being present f—^No; only to listen to the , address.'. '• ■ Continuing, .witness said towards the close Of the meeting he moved towards the double door to throw open the. doors tof fsoilHat©., / ths exit- of th.e crowd.. He always adopted this course; blit in this instance he opened the door on the request, from Constable Russell. At 'beginning of the meeting he ' heard the- chairman say relevant interj Potions would be’ welcomed ‘and that the police had' his authority to remove interjeerfcora who went “over the mark. The ,■ chairman, mentioned this before Mi' Heathcote' commenced his address, apid about half-andiour after the meeting 1 commenced he made a similar remark. j. j " \ ‘ ' . . . fMr Hayes: There was a local m The Mail, about the incident a few days later. - , _ . , Witness! appealed to the Bench as to whether he had to answer it.' The Bench said the question could be answered. Witness then said that this was so. Counsel: Did you inspire • • Proceeding, Mr Hayes asked it tins report of the meeting was-'a correct one; but witness said he did not read it. ' But ’he would say .that defendant made more than five, interjectionsProbably defendant applauded several of the lecturer’s statements. Others in the audience were making some noise, and expressed their hostility to defendant. , . ‘ . Witness was. further asked as to questional , handed up by defendant. Witneessf considered' it showed bud taste on the part of deefendrmt m - getting’ ou the stage and walking be,tween .the speaker and the audience; mstqad of banting up the questions. Defendant wa? subjected to some ,m- ---, terriiption from a part of the audience .While he was taking up the questions, -•Counsel asked.•whether witness was not aware that a .Parliamentary 'candidate insisted on people asking questions coining.qn to the stage? Witness admitted tha/thut be In. further questioning, witness said the chairman had not specially picked ■ out any person and warned him that he woulld be removed. To the,Bench: In his opinion the hostility Was caused', by people because th«jy cpuld not hear what the mealier was saying • . Witness was .pressed by counsel as to whether he would swear that the meeting, before the questions commen- . <ted, had ■ become -disorderly. In re- ’ gard to interjections, said witness, the , meeting was disorderly, i , Detective Russell,said after the meeting had.been'in progress half an a constant 'fire of interjections comfrom .defendant -and others: and

meiicea irora .ueieuuaiu, «•.*«« - Ut W. Snodgrass appealed from tne ‘ pit that he could not hear what was Doing f»id. The chairman said that it the interjections became too disorderly the police had authority to remove anyone, Mr Surrey opened the side door at’ his request. Defendant 'also argued'-with Mr Heathcote, at one stage of the meeting. ■ V .. • To the Police: At question lime the pieeting-was an absolutely disturbed one, caused through defendant. His own opinion was that it was best to re.’inove defendant for his own safety, as 'hostility,:Was shown him by a suction « "of i the pit. ' ~ , JTo Mr Hayes; Defendant was not , warned, .as in witness’s opinion the ' chairman had- abeady warned him along with others, under the general authority of the chairman he would remove a man bom a meeting, if he ch>aerved it, without Warning him ; il« had the general authority of the cbair'man that 'night. Defendant was not -fixe ringleader of the, disturbance; but jt was the hostility shown by a section «£ iho- crowd that made the disturb,since; ■ caused through the provocation the defendant. -Witness, saw nothing 4 inthe . - way, defendant gave his' questions l« the chairman. To the -Bench, witness Jsaitl that ’ when - defendant commenced to argue •with ith© lecturer, the chairman issued warning, hut did not address it to . Jas, H. Finney,'secretary, ,who was at , th®,meeting, sajd he's, was in a imvato .box, and had a good, view of the hall *wft.K ’the .exception,,Of thei pit. J-tm £gpedJcer numerous mVtW and'dthem At one 'W. Snodgrass appealed to M 1 making so Jttoob noise-that the.speaker - be; heard, ; The Mt was bell™ !lilES!iiiliiiiiiirWli >' J^ . ■ > , , - ft

■ ■ felons from defendant, among others, were most annoying to those who had gone to hear the speaker. He observed the chairman only on one occasion call for order. Witness wap of opinion that defendant’s air and manner when he took up questions, causedl a portion -of the crowd to become hostile.

To'Mr Hayes: He had seen worse, '.and had seen "better meetings. Counsel You have been at. Sunday school meetings, perhaps?—Not for a good- many years. (Laughter). Questioned as to the . meeting the following might, • witness said lie was sitting in the pit. ;v/; ' } Counsel: Oh, that is where all the barrackers sit’. (.Laughter).'.,-, In reply to further, questions, witness said Mr Heathcote made no objec-’ ] Lion, from the platform as to the interjections. Defendant was certainly within his rights when he took up the questions. He knew Mr Atmore made it a practice to- insist on questioners coming on to the platform to ask questions. To the Bench: The interjections during the meeting from defendant and others prevented the linislp of many sentences being heard by witness. 'He 1 would' not say it was entirely due to defendant’s interjections/. The Police wished to ask witness’ if Mr Heathcote had commented on the meeting next morning. Mr Hayes objected to the question being answered, as it would be only ’hearsay. ■■ The jßench ruled the. question admissable; and witness replied that the morning after the moeetiug Mi* -Heathcote remarked that' the interjections were most annoying) and upsetting to ■him.- ■ i To the Bench; He only referred to interjections in general. t - David Henry Herbert/ cloHc, Telegraph Department, said t-horee was considerable! protest from the audience at the interjections from' defendant. Occasionally witness lost the thread of the speaker’s remarks owing to the interjections from defendant and others. There was general protest from a .large section of the audience during the meeting. -The chairman called for order at least twice. Some of the interjections by defendant were relevant. To Mr Hayes: He had had very little experience of public meetings. E. E. Osborne, clerk, Post and Telegraph Defendant, said that defendant came under his notice by interjecting, and was most annoying to the audi-

cnce and led up to a disturbed state of mind among the audience. Some of defendant’s objections were, he thought, foolish ones. Others were interjecting but defendant was most persistent. t A section of the audience were hostile to defendant owing to his interjections. There were a few appeals for order by the chairman. To Mr Hayes: He knew Dr Tillyard as well as he knew defendantbut ho could not say that the first-named interjected more than defendant. N/ferman N. Oldershaw, postal clerk, considered that from half-way through the meeting there was a running fire of interjections all round. Defendant was doing a good deal of it; but he could, not say he was worse than others. ' Witness heard Mr Snodgrass appeal' for. order, and ho remembered the chairman also making aq appeal on one occasion. ‘ As to. question time, the “barrack” ■ when defendant’ handed up questions ■ was good-natured. The crowd 'became very hostile tt>’ defendant, and /witness thought a section of them would have “taken” to defendant., ■if', •'/. ■ . To' the Dench’, witness thought the hostility was caused partly on account of the manner of the “interjections by defnclant and partly on accqunl of them not being able to hear the speaker. To Mr Hayes: He did not hear, Mr Heathcqte make any complaint; though Mr Snodgrass appealed for order after question-time commenced. He should say Rev. Harry got a better lira ring the following night than did Mr Heathcote; but the latter got a fair hearing. / .Walter S. Snodgrass, merchant, said he had a seat at the |Sit door, as the other part of the building was full. There, was a good deal of interruption from Vjdie front near the stage, but. it was not accused, whom ho did not see until he got up to take some questions up fo the -stage. There was a very nasty feeling cropping up in the pit and there was talk of personal violence, so he appealed to the chairman to in tervene.. , To the Bench: His appeal was made to the chairman not so much on account of defendant but on account of others. Continuing, witness said that defendant was a persistent interjector at question time, and he also argued which tended to create disorder. He would consider the general conduct was fair for the class of meeting. . The Bench said he did not consider how the general conduct of the meot- : ing affected the case; it was defendant's conduct that was being inquired, i into. , To Mr Hayes; Ho could not take any exception to the moetiftg after .be appealed to the chairman until up to ! question time.. It was absolutely impossible to hear defendant’s interjections, as the hostile section were 1 “howling” at him, especially when* he wished to ifrgue an answer to a question..:' • ■ ' ■. i Witness here stated that he left the . building half-way through question . time, as there was too much noise. < . Percy F. Burn, saddler, considered i the meeting was the rowdiest he had > over attended, caused by interjections • by defendant. He was sitting about ■ 15ft from defendant. Witness could s not hear a considerable portion of the address owing to interruptions. A ■ great majority of the people near him , could not at times near the lecturer.

To Mr Hayes: He had attended such meetings in Nelson, for the past 30 years. He sang out once to Detective Bussell to keep order. He did not applaud tho speaker, as he could not hear What ho was saying. Counsel’: Why did you stay then? —l,think it rude to leave a meeting before tho speaker has finished Counsel: Goodness me ; more , etiquette at public meetings I Jn reply to further questions, witness said ho thought some of the interjections were “Rot,” “Rubbish,” “Not true.” 1 Counsel: Do you think such words should not bo used at public meetings ?—L would not argue with a lawyor. ■. The Magistrate: Lawyers never' say “Rot.” ' Witness; They all speak tho truth. Counsel: Would you call .“Hear,

hear.” an interjection ?-• Quite » different thing. What would you-nail an interjection?—Opposition to what a man' is saying. Witness went on to say there was a. Whing fire of interjections. W. Lock, Mayor of Nelson, and chairman of the meeting, considered (the meeting a fairly Orderly one considering . what was being debated. Defendant was one of the inter lectors; ( but they did not prevent the lecturer speaking or getting a fair hearing. Several times during the meeting lie called 1 for order from the audience. Defendant very often stood up and had rather i a loud voice, which made*’ him more | easily distinguishable. In his introductory’remarks he said he would not ohI ject to relevant interjections so long as they- did not disturb the speaker or an- | noy the audience, ai|d that if it reached 1 that stage the. police had his authority •to 'first warn and then eject the interi jector. When Mr Snodgrass appealed, i lie (witness) thought, he said that, unless i order was maintained the police would j have to remove the interrupters. During question time lie made no reference ito keeping order. Defendant, challenged 'aif answer to a question by the lecturer, j To the Bench: The lecturer never had to stop his speech once *qu account of 1 interjections. ■ , 1 . ' ! (Left sitting.)