A SERIOUS CHARGE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22122, 28 November 1933, Page 4

A SERIOUS CHARGE

INDECENT DOCUMENTS THROUGH POST COLLEGE STUDENT FINED. (Special to Daily Times ' CHRISTCHURCH, November 27. The action of a Canterbury University College student who recently answered an advertisement in a Christchurch newspaper by a girl seeking work and asked her to ring him up to make an appointment, led to his appearance in the Magistrate’s Court to-day on a serious charge of sending two indecent documents through the post. He pleaded guilty and was fined £lO. His name was ordered to be suppressed. When interviewed by the police the accused stated that the whole thing was a hoax, the idea being that when the girl put in an appearance several of the students should have a laugh at her. Mr E. D. Mosley was on the Bench. The accused, whose age is 20, was represented by Mr R. Twyneham. Chief Detective W. H. Dunlop said that on August 10 the complainant, an unemployed gill, inserted an advertisement in an evening newspaper seeking a position. On the following day she received through the post two letters, apparently written on the same date and by the same person. The letters contained certain very, serious suggestions of an indecent nature. The girl promptly handed them to her people, and they took the matter up with the police. In the first letter it was asked that if the suggestions contained were approved a personal paragraph should be inserted to the following effect: “Young lady, 20, would like meet another young lady, same age.” In the second letter, however, it was suggested that the girl should ring up the accused. The number of the telephone at the Canterbury College Students’ Union headquarters was given. On checking up the handwriting of several Canterbury College students it was discovered that the accused’s was similar to that in the letters. He was interviewed arid was quite frank. He. explained that the whole thing was a hoax, the idea being that wdien the girl put in an appearance several of the students should have a laugh at her. Mr Twyneham said that had the accused been brought up in better circumstances he would not have done this very grave thing. It was very simple and stupid and was bound to be found out. The accused did not attempt to disguise his handwriting and gave a telephone number of a place where he could be found. “He has done everything in his power to right the trouble,” said Mr Twyneham. “He has been to the girl and to her parents and apologised, and made such an impression on them that I believe there is a letter on the police file asking that the charge be withdrawn. In the institution to which he belongs he is held in the highest esteem. Although simple-minded in some respects he is a most brilliant young student. The rector of the college came to me about him and said he would not have believed him capable of such an action. He is respected by the other students and his tutors, and so far as outside indications go is a model student.” The Act provided for a penalty of three months in gaol or a fine of f 100. (SomctimesjLhe publication of the name was a far'greater punishment than the offence warranted, and he felt that if the accused suffered the maximum penalty-three months—and his name were suppressed the punishment would not be as harsh as if he were fined a small amount and given publicity. In reply to the magistrate as to how the charge would affect the accused’s career Mr Tw'yneham said if there were not a great deal of publicity over the case there was a very fair chance that the college authorities would allow him to continue his studies.

“ The publication of the name if often a greater deterrent than any punishment,” said the magistrate, who added that it was an extraordinary attitude of mind that prompted youths to commit crimes of this kind.

The accused was given 48 hours to find the money, and the default was fixed at one month’s imprisonment.