ALLEGED INDECENCY AT ST. CLAIR BATHS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 8412, 8 February 1889, Page 4

ALLEGED INDECENCY AT ST. CLAIR BATHS.

At fche City Police Oourt yesterday, Luke Clydii Hazlett, a youug man, was charged before Mr E. H. Carew, R.M., aud Mr H. S. Fish with that he did wilfully aud unlawfully do an indecent act in the view of a public place. Mr Fraser, in opening the case for the prosecution, said the facts of the present charge were as follows:—The bench were probably aware that tliere were opau batbs afc St. Clair vested in the Caversham Council. These were immediately adjacent to a road leading to the second bay beyond the Ocean Beach, which in th-.: afternoon was largely frequented by women and children. There wero various conveniences for those who used the baths. There were private boxes, which can be obtained for 2d, aud also a free shed ; aud there vjerc rocks adjacent to the baths which were commonly used by bathers. It was imperative that all persons iv the baths should wear trunks, but persons could dress on the rocks without giving any offence by taking the simplest precautions, and it was seldom that any offence was given. On the afternoon on which the information was laic!, at about half-past 4, the defendant was bathing with his brother afc St. Clair, aud he undressed at the sonth or further end of the baths, in the open air upon the rocks. After he j had his bath he proceeded to dress himself with a total absence of any precaution in order not to offend against the common law cf decency. The attention of the police was fortunately attracted to him, and hence tho chargo. He (counsel) would prove that the exposure was perfectly unjustifiable aud perfectly indefeasible, and thafc defendant wilfully exposed himself to women and children ou the road. When he (counsel) used the word " wilfully," he used it with the full significance of what it meant. The defendant exposed himself while looking at women and children who were passing the baths. The defendant, by his birth, education, and surroundings should have been the last to offend in a matter of this kind. There was one unfortunate feature in the case which he (counsel) would like to present to the bench. If a certain penalty were inflicted ou the defendant a stigma would attach to him through life, but there were other methods of dealiug with the case which would probably suggest themselves fco the bench, who would no doubt adopt a course that would freely meet the requiremeuts of the case and prevent a repetition of the offence. He would content himself with fully proving the case, which was really a somewhat aggravated oue.

Mr Haggitt: It is a tissue of falsehoods from beginning to cud.

Mr Fraser: My friend interrupts me by saying the whole case is a tissue of falsehoods from beginning to end. Mr Haggitt: I say your statement. Mr Fraser said his learned friend would understand that he was speaking from his instructions. He would prove the matter, and leave ifc to the bench to decide whether his statements were true or nofc. Evideuce was then given for the prosecution by Sergeant Macdonell, John Donaldson, Constable Parker, and Richard Grimmett.

Mr Haggitt, iv opening the case for the defence, said he never saw such a wretched case as this. Here the charge was that a grossly ludecent act was committed in the presence of the public; and what was advanced in support of that was that two policemen saw the boy jusfc come out of the bath and wipe himself with a towel when he had a short shirt on. That was the extent of the charge, and ho (counsel) submitted that if there was any foundation ior such a charge at all, there were dozens and dozeus of people in the place at the time who must have seen tho exposure, if it took place, and there were women and children outside the baths who musfc have been shocked by this exposure if it took place. But a case of this kind ought never to havo been allowed to come before the court on the unsupported testimony of two policemen. The defendant was a decent young lad of respectable parents, and was charged with an offence which mightresolve itself iuto an indictable offence, and . which at all events, if it was proved, was punishable with imprisonment with hard labour, and perhaps with a flogging. Aud what was the offence that he was charged with ? Simply that after he had been bathing he went to dry himself, aud for a period of a few moments—which must occur with every bather—he was partially exposed. He (counsel) submitted that not only did no boy ever bathe without exposing himself, but it was utterly impossible for any person to bathe without for some moment or other exposing some portion of his person to some prying eyes if they liked to look at him.

Llr Carew: But there are dressing rooms. Blr Haggitt said no doubfc there were, but the dressing rooms were entirely insufficient for the purposes of the public, and he would prove that on this occasion—iustead of what had been stated to the contrary—by witness whose testimony was beyond a shadow of question—that the dressing rooms were crowded; that the free (places were crowded; aud that there was hardly room iv the water for the bathers that were there at the time the defendant and his brother were. As thousands of other men did, they went round to the rocks and bathed

from there. A good deal had been said about people going round in the neighbourhood of the road that bounded tbe baths and .seeing what war, going ou all round the baths, but he submitted—what was simply a matter of common sense—that if people weut to baths where people were bathing they must expect to see naked bodies ; and if people went along streets in the immediate neighbourhood of baths they must expect, if they looked in the direction of the bath?, to see the same thiugs as those ; who were in the baths. If women and girls weut past these batbs, unless they weut for a necessary purpose, they went deliberately with the knowledge before them that they must see things going on there, and they were not eutitled to any sympathy at ail. He maintained that a womau who would go past baths in order to see men with trunks on would be preciously little shocked if she saw men with trunks off.

Mr Fraser said he was very sorry his friend descended to make ridiculous statements of thafc kind. When people went into the baths it was necessary for them to have trunks on. Mr Carew : Let Blr Haggitt proceed. Mr Haggitt: All I can say is that it is a most extraordinary thiug that a police prosecution i.s got up and a policeman out of his own pocket pays tho cost of the counsel who comes here to conduct the case. Blr Fraser said he did not wish to interfere with the privilege of another counsel. Blr Haggitt, however, had no right to assume his costs wero paid by the police ; and his learned friena should keep out of that court if he made comments of that kind. Mr Haggitt said the bench had no evidence that tho road past the baths led anywhere. There was no question of women having to pass along this road for the purpose of reaching their residences, or anything of that kind ; and if they chose to pass there duriug certaiu hours, knowing meu were in the baths, they must expect to see naked men. Blr Carew: That is, they mus-fc exneet to see parts of men exposed. Blr Haggitt: They musfc expect to sco naked bodies. Blr Carew: That is not what is complained of.

Mr Haggitt: They must as well expect to see tho bodies of men slightly hid by wearing trunks, or they might wear fig leaves for all I know. They must expect to see accidents happen some time or other such as happened on this occasion, and such as Mr Donaldson saw. I may appeal to your Worship to say whether, in the days that you weut bathing, there were such things as bathing trunks;- or whether you went iuto the water as you were boru, and came out of ifc iv the same condition. I never possessed a pair of bathing trunks in my life, and I believe I have swam a good many hundred—a hundred miles at all events. Mr Carew: Nevertheless, it may be punishable to bathe naked and exposed in a public place if near a bye-way. Mr Haggitt said the argument to that was plain enough. It was the fault of the people who put baths m a place where people went to bathe near a public bye-way. Learned counsel weut on to point out that the sectiou of the act under which the information was laid was not meant to apply to a case of this kind, and said : Fancy any young man or old man either bathing and carelessly dressing himself, aud finding bimsely subjected to a year's imprisonment with hard labour if the tail of his shirt flies up! Mr Carew: No; the charge is wilfully, not accidentally. Mr Haggitt said could not his Worship see at a glance that the act was not meant to apply to a person who was drying himself after bathing? Mr Cavew: The eas.; for the prosecution is that he stood there so as to show himself a.s much as he could. iV!r Haggitt said the charge was that he wilfully did mi indecent act in a public place, or in the view thereof, whether alone or with any other person. He (counsel) submitted that that, was meant to meet cases of gross indecency. If a man went to bathe without any drawers he would be amenable to the bye-law if a bye-law were passed by fche council; but if not, there was nothing to prevent a man from running naked about the beach all day long if he liked. Mr Carew: Would it not be an offence against the liye-tuvs V Blr Haggitt: What I mean to contend is that the act was never intended to meet a case of this kiud. Blr Carew: What would be a gross and indecent act under one set of circumstances would not bo under another. Here ifc was said there were a large number of people about—women aud children. Blr Haggitt: A large number of people wero going to bathe, and the only two persons who saw this indecent act were two constables. Blr Carew .* We havo evidence thafc others* could have seeu ifc. Blr Haggitt said the only evidence was that of the constables. There were plenty of people about, and not one had complaiued of the defendant indecently exposing himself. After some further argument as to whether there was a case to answer, Blr Carew deoided that thero was. Blr Haggitt then reforred to tho witnesses he would call for the defence, and said tho whole case resolved itself into tbis: that at the mos fc the defendant was careless; that he was uot wilfully careless; that ho was unknowingly careless in puttiug his shirt ou and wiping himself, and exposing something to the view of

Sergeaut Macdonnell, which he in his wicked mind—if he (counsel) might be allowed such an expression—the wicked mind natural to a policeman—cousidered to be an indecent act—a wilful and deliberate violation of the law on the part of the defendant, committed under the-very eyes of two policemen, whom he must have seeu were looking at him at the time he was doing ;his act.

Evidence was g;r,;n for the defence by J. White, Thomas Bennett, William Bennett, William Hazlett, S. Solomon, aud James Mackerras. All the ■.viti-e.ss;?s except the last two said they were bathing with the defendant, and they did not see him expose himsc-lf.

Mi* Carew, in giving his decision, said the 1 evidence wa.s very contradictory, but of course the explanation might be this: that it was very easy fur a person to identify another wheu he was dressed, but there might be some difficulty in identifying the person when dressed to be the same person someone had seen naked. The bench, however, were not satisfied that the case had been proved ; at the same time they thought that the bye-laws made by the Caversham Borough were uot adequate to meet a case of indecency, bufc they had ample power under the Municipal Corporations Act to make such bye-laws. Thoy might fix the times at which persons might bathe, and provide for the observance of proper order and decency on the part of persons bathing^ But if they made a bye-lav.*, through insufficient care a person would not be liable to a peualty. The case would bo dismissed.