INDECENT LETTERS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 17957, 6 December 1921, Page 9

INDECENT LETTERS.

THE HAMILTON CASE. ACCUSED 'DENIES WRITING. ONE MONTH IN GAOL. [BY TKLEQKATU,—OWN CORRESPONDENT. ] _ HAMILTON, Monday. The case in which William Williams (Mr. Gray) was charged with causing indecent documents to bo sent through the post to I. W. Porter and his wife, was concluded before Mr. H. A. Young, S.M., in the Police' Court to-day-. Detective Sweeny appeared, lor the police. ' < When the caslNvas first heard a fortnight ago the evidence showed that Mr, Porter received several obscene, anonymous letters, and his wife received o tKers, purporting to be from one "Mary O'Callinane," aJleging that Porter was tie father of her child. 1 In opening for the defence, counsel said he had found it impossible to. get any handwriting experts, and consequently ho was not in a position to combat the evidence of tho experts for the prosecution. In the face of those experts/ho could only support tho evidence of a complete denial. Counsel stressed tho absence of motive, and the fact that Porter and Williams had always been the best of friends, The hVst letter, which defendant admitted writing, was written as a joke. Counsel admitted thero were similarities in the handwriting, but pointed out the possibilities of similarities occurring in letters written by different people. Counsel urged that the IndecenJ, Publications Act, under which tho charges were brought, was not meant to cover such a case. It idealt with tho circulation of books, photographs, and other publications, and surely was not meant to cover private correspondence. He submitted that the letters were not indecent within the meaning of the Act, and as they were sent in a sealed envelope were not published in the same manner as they would have been if sent on an open postcard. Th 6 defendant, William' Williams, said he had known complainant about 12 years, j and -had always been on friendly terms with him. They used to "chip" at ono another, and their conversation was more or less loose, Tho expressions used in the first letter were those* used by both in the course of ordinary conversation, and the letter was sent as a joke. Witness admitted writing it the next time he met Porter, and they had a good laugh over it. Witness denied writing any of tho other letters, and had no idea who did write them. He did .answer a letter from Detective Sweeny. He did not write the letters signed "Mary O'Callinane," and had no grudge against porter or his wife. Witness took no interest in Irish matters. Cross-examined : He admitted using such expressions as those in the first letter, but not those in the other letter}. William Fotheringham, drainer, Hamilton, said Porter tola him of the first letter, and the whole thing was treated as & joke. WitnesS was an Orangeman, but witness had never heard Williams speak disparagingly of Orangemen. Witness did not think Williams was likely to write such letters. The magistrate said that after perusing the evidence of the experts he was satisfied that all the letters were written by defendant. He was also satisfied that tho letters were indecent within the meaning of the. Act, and that they had a mischievous tendency. Defendant was -liablo to a fine of £100 or <three months' imprisonment. Taking into consideration the nature of the letters and the possible effect of them, he thought it was not a case for a monetary penalty. Defendant was sentenced to one month's imprisonment on one* charge, and on each of tho three others he was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon.