WATERSIDE INCIDENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LII, Issue 15932, 1 June 1915, Page 5

WATERSIDE INCIDENT.

ALLEGED OBSCENE LANGUAGE

CASE IN SUPREME COURT. A case connected with the strike of 1913 occupied the attention of the Supreme Court, yesterday. Before Mr. Justice Hosking and a common juty, William Alexander Johnston (Mr. W. Hackett) was charged with using obscene language on the Queen's Wharf on March 3. A plea of not guilty was entered. The Crown Prosecutor, the Hon. .1. A. Tole, said that the charge was laid under the Police Offences Act. and the accused had availed himself of his right to trial by jury. Outlining the facts of the ruse. he said that the accused was a member of the old Waterside Workers' Union, and had been refused admission to the new union. Accused was much incensed at the treatment he had received, and had taken an opportunity of publicly expressing his resentment. On March 3, when tlii waterside workers' annual picnic was being held at Motutapu Island, the accused had watched the workers and their families embarking on the ferry .-steamer Albatross from the Queen's Wharf and had addressed them as "scabs," qualifying this and other statements with certain obscene words. There were a number of women and children within hearing, and a remark was made by one man, " That is a nice thing to say before a lot of women and children." The principal witness for the prosecution was Frank Stephen Fraser, waterside worker, living in Le.-lic Avenue, Morningside. He corroborated counsel's statement. Mr. Hackett: Von took a keen interest in the recent strike ?—I did not hold office in the union. You have given evidence five times against this man in prosecutions fur obscene language There may have been four. Evidence of a similar character was given by Julius ('. B. Boult, William Charles Rowe. William Greene, and Kenneth William Mtinroe. Constable Michael Gourley, by whom the information vas laid, also gave evidence. The accused elected to cive evidence in his own behalf. He said that he had taken some part in the strike, and the feeling which had arisen then had led to several charges being preferred against him. He was convicted of using insulting language, and a charge of using obscene language was dismissed. He bad never applied for admission to the new union, but had been told by a secretary of that organisation that his application for membership would be refused. The accused dei'iec that he had used words alleged to ha' e been spoken by him. No such words •xv e used within his hearing. He stated, further, that he had been victimised, and ins-awed a recent prosecution when he had been charged with vagrancy and had been acquitted of this charge, having been able to prove that he was possessed of considerable means. James Duff, a member of the new union, ■ pave evidence that he had heard seme ' rl.scene words used, but Johnston bar not made use of them. He was standing close i to Jobnsui and was perfectly certain that be was not guilty of the charge preferred against him. Eli John Rickards, a brother of the secretary of the new union, also stated that he had heard obscene words 'ltd, but not by Johnston. Witness aoded that be i knew the man who made the remarks i which Johnston was alleged to have > uttered. Under cross-examination, witness said he did not know the name of the man who had made the remarks. Similar evidence was given by three , other witnesses. r In summing up, His Hono<- stated that ' it the jury, having heard the witnesses 3 for the defence, were satisfied that the - witnesses for the Crown bad established a s ease beyond all reasonable doubt, a verdict e of guilty mti6t be returned. After a retirement of four hiun, the 3 jury announced that they were jnaile tc I agree. A re-trial was ordered.