OH HOSE !

NZ Truth, Issue 755, 6 December 1919, Page 8

OH HOSE !

Cody Causes a Crowd to Coiled

A FREE " LEG-SHOW " IN COURTENAY-PLACE

Silk Shoes aad Stockings, Bat Nothing Shocking

Not Improper, but Merely "Agin" tho By-laws,

Stockings, garters, and ladies' legs — there is every reason to believe they were those of the fair sex — came m for a good deal of discussion m the Wellington Magistrate's Court on Tuesday afternoon this week, but the worthy man of the Bench, Mr. E. Page, S.M., -was' not so much called upon to decide whether or not an exhibition of such articles might be termed of an improper nature, as to determine whether a window display of stockings at full length on real live ladies' legs was responsible for a breach of the city by-laws. In an effort to make an effective show of shoes and stockings an enterprising firm recently made a window display of their wares by the employment of human legs, instead of wooden ones. That the experiment was a pronounced success there was no doubt, for people crowded round the shop, window, all eyes centred, on the several pairs of moving 1 legs therein. The CHANGE FROM WOOD TO FLESH to show the stockings to better advantage was, indeed, remarkable, but as to whether the many eager eyes scanned thu sizo and shape of the legs, or the style of stockings and shoes, or even the garters is best known to those who happened upon the scene. At any rate the "show" attracted much attention, and not the least interested were some men m blue apparently somewhat concerned at the disturbance. The show, however, brought the promoter into conflict with the law, and the receipt of a blue paper intimated to William J. Cody, of Courte-nay-place, that his presence was required m court to explain why he "did suffer 'an act to take place m premises adjoining Courtenay-place, m consequence whereof other persons were induced to congregate on the footpath of the street so as to cause an obstruction." In court, Sergeant Lopdell prosecuted, and Mr. G. G. Watson appeared on behalf of the defendant. The usual preliminary remarks as to the section of the by-laws under which the prosecution, was being* made having been put forth by Sergt. Lopdell, he called upon another possessor of three silvery stripes, m the person of Sergt. Edwards, to enter the witness box. At 3.45 p.m. on November 5, the eagle-eye of this member of the Force had descended upon a crowd outside a shop m Courtenay-place, but as there were something like a hundred other pairs of eyes directed towards something that was taking place m the shop window he couid not observe the reason for such a crowd across the footpath. But he made further investigations, and managed to gain an entrance to the defendant's shop. In doing so, his eyes fell upon an exhibition of LADIES' STOCKINGS AND GARTERS worn by some persons who were m the window. All that could be seen were three pairs of legs. Inside the shop he drew Cody's attention to the fact that his display was causing a crowd to congregate outside, and to this Cody replied; "What are our windows for 7 It is your place to move the crowd." Cody also mentioned that other places had given displays to attract crowds. The police-sergt. paid another visit to tho scene at 4.40 p.m. the same day and again found that there were a number of people on the footpath watching the "show." He had another interview with the promoter of the display of legs and was informed that he (Cody) had been out on the footpath to see that the footpath was kept clear. Further details as to the nature of the display were provided by the cross- examination of the sergeant. Mr. Watson: In spite of the crowd, you saw the display? — I saw it 'as I was going into the shop. You are aware that it was what might be termed -A FEW MINUTES' SHOW? Witness believed that such was the case. In answer to further questions, he agreed that Courter.ay-place at that particular point was practically the widest street m Wellington. As to the volume of traffic along that thoroughfare he would not agree that it was not heavy, expressing the opinion that at times it was great, particularly m view of the fact that the tram terminus was near by. On his second visit to the shop the traffic was not quite so congested as on the first occasion. People may have been able to get past the shop if they had jostled. their way through the crowd. As to the duty of the police to move those who were congregated to see the window display, witness stated that he had endeavored to move the people, but the CROWD WOULD NOT MOVE. It was the class of crowd with which there was some difficulty m making them move, being of a different character from the crowd which congregated outside the "Evening Post." The latter was a continuous crowd, and there was always a half-way passage left on the footpath, even when the race news was posted up on Saturday nights. The crowd outside Cody's was also different, m witness's opinion, to those which were to be seen outside Kirkcaldie and Stain's, James Smith's, and other such places when a cheap sale commenced. It was likewise of different class from the crowds which waited outside Fullers'. Defendant's counsel also mentioned that a much larger crowd had recently been attracted to another place almost opposite Cody's by a band which was playing outside the shop for commercial purposes, but the police- sergeant was not aware of this. Under further cross-examination, it was admitted that on the following day the defendant had exhibited a notice m his window to the effect that the "show" would be stopped if the crowd became excessive, and had taken other steps to minimise the crowd. As to what was on view m the window and whether it could be considered to be termed an indecent "show," Mr. Watson put the following question to the witness: Was there anything more to be seen m the shop window than by observing the ladles parading Lambton-quay on a fine afterpoon? Witness: " You could see A BIT MORE LEG; m fact, as much as two or three inches above the knee. As to there being any implication from this statement that any visible portion of the legs might be uncovered, counsel pointed out that the skirt ended where the stocking did, and this apparently met with witness's approval. As to the type of persons who possessed the legs which were on view, the sergeant explained: "1 took it that they were women." "They may have been men," remarked Mr. Watson, "and that would have been a shocking occurrence." Re-examined by Sergeant Lopdell, witness made the following- reply to a request to describe the nature of the crowd and the conduct m front of the window display, a number of the crowd were hoodlum lads and youngr Tho next witness called was Constable J. Hunt, who happened to be on duty m Courtenay-place at the time of the show. He had a better idea of

the crowd than he had of the exhibits m the window, and from his facial expressions whilst m the -witness box he took a somewhat lighter view of the occurrence than the previous witness, whom he had accompanied into the shop. To him the people that were congregated outside seemed to be waiting to satisfy their curiosity. He had also found the crowd difficult to move. The attraction inside the window was apparently so great as to cause those assembled to pay little heed to the arm of the law's request to move on. According to S.ergeant Lop dell, three pairs of legs could be seen, and he was certain that for some two or three inches above the knees they were visible. A curtain was drawn across the thighs bo as to prevent seeing any higher part of the legs. Questioned as to what form of legs were on exhibition, he said: "I think they were female, but I AM NOT A GOOD JUDGE." As to whether any other shop-keeper had been prosecuted m Wellington for setting up an effective display, witness stated that his experience here was limited. He recollected, however, that some years ago Sandow had been prosecuted for an offence of a similar nature. This concluded the evidence for the prosecution, and Mr. Watson proceeded to address the court on behalf of his client. The case, he said, was of great importance; it was a most unusual one. If a conviction was entered m the case it would surprise shopkeepers as much as the summons had surprised the defendant. The whole point was as to the legality of a shopkeeper to make an effective window display. What had actually been done was this: shoes and stockings had been exhibited on human leg's instead of on wooden legs. Regarding the obstruction he suumitted that every case must depend on circumstances. Such a window display as has been given by Cody and Company had been usod by firms m various parts of the world, and m support of this he produced an exhibit. There was nothing more; to be seen m the window than could be seen on Lambton-quay, and far less than could be observed m a FASHIONABLE BALL-ROOM. The Magistrate: You do not suggest that you see ladies on Lambton-quay showing as much of their legs as has been stated m evidence — two or three inches above the knees? Counsel: One certainly sees them up to the knees on occasions. Continuing, counsel referred to the fact that after the police had suggested that the defendant might be prose--cuted, he (defendant) had done all possible to minimise the crowd, having taken action outside the shop p.s well as posting up a notice inside the window. Private enterprise, he submitted, must have legitimate scope for its enterprise, and he went on to refer to the fact that crowds gathered outside scores of places m Wellington. In concluding, he also pointed out that a person was being prosecuted m this case, whereas* the display was made m the window of a lirni of which defendant was a member. William Cody, m thp witness box, said that he had no idea that by mak- | ing thu display it would bring him m conflict with the police. Ho could testify that m many other places similar displays had been given, and before he had made his display a test had been carried out. A substantial velveteen curtain was so hung that no portions o£ the legs above Ihe knees could be seen. The garters were worn below the knees, just above the calf, to give a little color to that part of the stockings. On one occasion there were four persons engaged m the display, and all that could be seen were four pairs of legs from the knee downwards. Three persons were employed on other occasions. After the police spoke to him the crowd, m no instance, was right across the footpath. After further evidence concerning the action he had taken, and his conversation with the police, Sergt. Lopdell proceeded to cross-examine the witness. "I seriously suggest," said the sergeant, "that what I saw would be largely responsible for who would stop there FOR WHAT THEY COULD SEE." To this witness replied that the crowd was not so big as that outside the "Evening Post." It was a very ordinary crowd composed of the average men and women. There were certainly no hoodlums, as suggested by the police. During the display a lady from America had gone into the shop and told defendant that "it was just like Home." A married woman, Edith Murphy, who was outside the shop on one occasion when the police paid a visit, said that the number of people congregated there was not so large as to prevent other people passing. The crowd was not as big as those she had passed .m Cuba-street the same day. Asked as to her opinion of the display, witness said there was nothing objectional about it; m fact, she thought it was rather nice. There was nothing to suggest that it was m any way an indecent "show." Evidence was also given by Andrew Williams, music-seller, who has occasion to pass Cody's shop several times a day. He had seen the display and did not regard it as objectionable. Of the legs he could see nothing above the knees. The crowd each time he passed by was not right across the footpath. This concluded the defence. His Worship, summing up, said that it seemed to him that the prosecution had established a case, and he must enter a conviction. It was not suggested that the display was indecent, but from the evidence that had come before him he considered that the display was of such a nature as calculated to cause an -obstruction. That there was a blockage, he had no doubt, and he agreed with the police that it was different m nature from other blocks caused by people assembling outside the theatres, the "Post," and other places. He was simply concerned with the facts as to whether an obstruction was caused by defendant, and he WOULD ENTER A CONVICTION. It was, however, m defendant's favor that he had subsequently taken steps to stop the crowd stretching right across the footpath. Such crowding of the thoroughfare should be stopped. Defendant was convicted and fined £4 with costs 7s. To enslave mankind to his narrow vision is the constant aim of the Wowser. He slanders his feilcwcreature, dead, or alive, to gain his ends.*