DISTURBING A MEETING

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22065, 22 September 1933, Page 11

DISTURBING A MEETING

BY-ELECTION INCIDENT THE OFFENDER CONVICTED (Per United Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, September 21. As a sequel to the rowdy political meeting when the Acting Prime Minister (Mr J. G. Coates) spoke at Cashmere Hills on September 11 Francis Oakleigh Shacklock, who had frequently interjected and been escorted from the hall, was to-day charged with using insulting language and disturbing a public meeting. The magistrate (Mr E. D. Mosley) convicted the defendant and ordered him to pay costs. The magistrate declined to determine the controversial question raised at the meeting whether the Coalition had a mandate to extend the life of Parliament.

Counsel for the defence, Mr Thomas, said that Mr Coates had made a statement regarding a mandate at earlier meetings, and had “ got away ” with it. Shacklbck took exception to that, because in his view the statement was untrue. “ It is all very well to put up a bluff if you hold four aces,” said counsel, “blit Mr Coates did not hold four aces.”

The magistrate: Would you want a “poker face” as Veil? Mr Thomas: Mr Coates has this, sir. When Mr Coates saw that he was to be faced'with something that did not support his statement he changed his ground, and said the Government was returned with a majority, and could do what it liked. He thought that he was to be faced with a newspaper clipping. When he saw it was a typewritten sheet, he saw a loophole, and like an astute campaigner, tried to dodge through the loophole by throwing doubt on the accuracy of the document.

“ The sub-inspector refers to the bad example set by Shaddock,” said Mr Thomas. “ I am justified in saying the same thing of Mr Coates. What sort of a, figure does the Acting Prime Minister of New Zealand cut when he jumps off a public platform to assault a man? What sort of figure does he cut? What right has a man of the experience and education of Mr Coates to lose control the way he did? At least his conduct has nothing to commend it.” There was nobody in New Zealand, said Mr Thomas, who gave harder knocks than Mr Coates, and he must expect knocks in return. The difference between him and Mr Shaddock was that Mr Coates sugar-coated his epithets. He said “ fairy tale ” instead of lie. Mr Shacklock used the good old English term. He said: “ That is a lie.”

The "magistrate: The words are, “You are a liar.”

The defendant, in evidence, said he objected to Mr Coates’s statement that there was a mandate. When Mr Coates saw the paper witness handed to him he “ went in every direction sooner than answer.” The words finally used to him were: “ You lie.” , Shaddock was convicted and ordered to pay costs on the charge of disturbing the meeting. The charge of using insulting words was dismissed. The magistrate said it was evident, that Shacklock was temperamental, and perhaps not so well balanced as some other people in the community. He was somewhat excitable, and could probably get so excited as not to know what he was doing. His Worship added that to interrupt wilfully at a meeting, was not fair play, and the defendant should be ashamed of his conduct at that meeting.