OFFENSIVE LETTERS

New Zealand Times, Volume XL, Issue 9074, 19 June 1915, Page 8

OFFENSIVE LETTERS

TO CATHOLIC CLERGY WOMEN FINED IN MAGISTRATE 13 COURT. For some time past the Catholic <;) ‘i gy of Wellington have been in receij ,c of letters ot a grossly otfenwivo ni. tuiro. They mere handed to the police, o jd as a result of investigations by Del. ectivo Mason a woman named Laetitia, i Jane Hood appeared before Mr U. G. A. Cooper, ti.iU., in the Magistrate’s- j Court yesterday to answer tiuvo cha *g;eß or posting a packet I'.avmg word j of a grossly offensive character there in. Defendant, who was not represea reo by counsel, pleaded "not guilty.” , I Mr P. J. O’Regan, who appe *ired for the prosecutor, the Very Rev. Dr. O’Sheat, Coadjutor Archksho; p of 'Wellington, said that he had r. ' very unusual request to make. It was that the defendant bo sea) cited, as he understood that she had a revolver rhich she habitually carried about with i her, and thc.ro was no-knowing what . *hs might do. Ilk Worship (to deiendar f): “Havi you a revolver?’ Defendant: “No !” Ilia Worship: “Is that fcj ae?” ' ■ Defendant; “Perlectiy trr e.” Arclideacon Devoy, pans i priest a' St. Anne's, Wellington Sou' 3i, said he , had received a letter sir iiL-d “G. A. Martin, author of Roman ; Catholicism and Crime,’’ having referent e to a young woman employed at a draj try store in die city. The letter was handed jp His Wor ship to read, Mr O’Kngai). ’ stating' tnac probably after perusal h- > might want to ask the rev. witness a mre questions. His 'Worship, after pern smg the document ; “No, no question Mr O'Regan.” Archbishop O’Shea, sai 1 he had received a letter sigiud “G ordon Andrew Martin.” The letter was , the one produced, which was also ha oded in. Minnie Dunn, ahop e esistant, said she at one time stayed at the same boardinghouse with accn istd. She ■ left because Sirs Hood conti Dually made insulting remarks about 1 cr pastors. Witness was a Catholic. After she -'eft aho received four auony r.ous letters containing scurrilous atta> iks upon priests and nuns. The letters ’ ver-e signed “Gordon Martin,” and an-jthc-r “From one of the staff, witli the ■ sentiments oi os all.” , 1 Detective Karon, said that wh-lst making inquiries eouoerni ng the offensive letters, the subject ol the charges preferred against the defi '-jida-nt, lie received from Mr Daley, of Newtown, a letter (wliich he produced). The tetter was -ngned “Mrs Hood,” and was addressed “Miss Francis Daley, lauudiymnid, Lawrence street, Newtcv. ri.” Witness compared the writing with other letters he had in his posstesio: i and aa a result of his inquiries he loc a ted the accused at No. 70, Cambridge terrace. Ha called on her there and w .ked her if her name was Mrs Hoed- S' ic replied in the affirmative. Witness oske'd her to read the letter produced and to take notice of the signature. 1 She did so and repFod, "Yes, that is my signature. 1 wrote that letter.” Witness then snow'd her the offcast', e letters, the subject • f the present civ urges. To each one she replied, “Yes. I wrote that letter, 't is my signatui o. That is my jm v ii name.’’ She eair f the contents of the totters were true and that she was prepared to nrove itWitness told her that he did. not ’mow whether the gentlemen to whom ; the letters were addressed would ta) ie any action. She replied, “I’m not afraid of that. I only wish they would.. 1 wrote the letters to trv and oggr irate them into doing *O.” * Sulxfoue r tlv witness served upon the acc r.scd two summonses for alleged b -laches of the Dos. and Tel-graph. Act. She then etaiH “Thin I** cn.lv a case of luufi cn their part. W hv don’t they sue me for criminal libel > ‘No. They nr* too big cowards tor thr .t. If I reemved a ettrr I’ko that from pwon I thouju sue them for erimi cal lilv?l." , TTis Worship : “Any questions r Defendant: ’ 'No ouesfona.’ Detective THcklebaafc cqrroWaKxl what ihe prev'trus witness had said. Defendant s ffbmitted that the words

“grossly offensive character thereon,’ 1 meant on the t-uvelox>e. The words sbo hud written were not on the envelope, but inside.

His Worship held that a “postal packet” within the meaning of the Act meant a letter, and the words were, written on the letter. Defendant wan fined .£lO, w-th court costs Ms, and solicitor’s fee £1 Is upon one charge, and on the remaining two she was convicted and discharged. Leave to appeal • was -granted, security being ived at A'dO.