COUNCILLOR'S INDISCRETION

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8366, 28 February 1913, Page 4

COUNCILLOR'S INDISCRETION

DEFENDANT OF 71 FINED FOR 1 annoying WOMEN. MAGISTRATE’S, COMMENTS. LONDON, January IT Charged with behaving in a disorderly manner and annoying women in Wiljnslow rgad, Rusholmp, on Satur'day night, Stephen Edwards, a roprosontative of the Withington Ward in the Manchester City Council, was fined 21s and costs at the local police court,, Inspector Landsbuxy said that in consequence of complaints the defendant was watched, and he was seen to stop ‘ women who were alone and to. endeavour I to get into conversation with them. ’Three of the women were in court, -They were strangers to the defendant, and he spoke to them between 8 and 9 o’clock near the picture.house. One of them complained to the police of being annoyed by the defendant, who was afterwards taken to the station and charged. Mr Jordan (for the defence) said bo was’ not going to contradict the evidence of the inspector. Mr Edwards was-seventy-one years of ago, with a wife and a grown-up family, Re had resided in Withington for fourteen or sixteen years, had sat on the District Council, and had represented Wilhington in the City Council for seven or eight years. > It was almost incredible that a man l of Mr Edwards’s character and ago should be so indiscreet and so •foolish as - to place himself in such an unfortunate position, but not a: single word had been suggested that the defendant' bad been 'anyinmK more than indiscreet and had said nothing outside the bounds of propriety, Mr .Edwards was a genial man and was m the habit of addressing* people in the . street, so it might be .that, he was id- , lowing his usual custom. Mr Jordan said he did not know whether, strictly speaking, it wap an offence for a man to speak to a woman in the city, but the section said it was an offence for a man to annoy a woman. He asked the magistrates if they came' to the conclusion that an offence had boon committed to use their discretion, in , order that a conviction might not bo recorded, and to dismiss the summons on payment of costs. The ,chairman (Mr W. Richmond) said that the persistent manner m which the defendant acted for an hour and the complaints which had been made roust weigh with them, . They could not take the course proposed. The defendant must pay 31s and cost* and the of the witnesses.