AN OBSCENE LANGUAGE CASE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2914, 19 January 1910, Page 57

AN OBSCENE LANGUAGE CASE.

. QUESTION OF IDENTITY. The question of whether an innocent, and inoffensive young man -can be mistaken, bv a party" of other young men for a person who, a few- : minutes before, baa used filthy language, and offered to fight one ..of them, was argued before Mr Bartholomew, S.M., in the Police Court on 'the 14th inst, _ . The position alluded to arose in tne course of a case in which Henry Taunt pleaded “ Not guilty ” to a charge of using obscene language in Princes street on the evening of January 8. Mr D. Cooke appeared for accused. The Sub-inspector of Police stated that the information was laid under section 42 of “The Police Offences Act, 1908., About 10.40 p.m. on the night of the ’3th' inst., while two men named William Hall and Frederick M‘Hean were standing on the footpath in front of the Criterion Hotel, talking with a lady, - accused passed them, and made use of a most objectionable expression. None of them had taken am\ notice of him, or spoken to him, and he seemed sober. Hall told him to go away, but he ran up and down in front of them, put himself into a fighting attitude, and made, use of the same expression and others even more objectionable. Hall went for a constable, and found one just across the street. Meanwhile accused walked, to the corner, and from there went into the middle of the street near the City Hotel. Hall pointed out the man to the constable, who followed him as he turned back to the footpath near B.raithwaite’s, and accosted him. Hall accompanied the constable, and said, This is the man.” Hall declared he could have identified this man among a hundred. The man stated that he had done nothing, and had just come in from Caversham. The constable did not at once, arrest the man, and they (with the exception of the lady) went along to the Octagon, where they all met. again. Hero accused offered to fight Hall, and was at once positively identified by M’Lean as the man who had made use of the filthy expressions referred to. Then he was arrested, and taken to the station. Hall, M‘L©an, and a third person went to the Police Station, where accused was again identified. This, in substance, was the evidence given by William Hall, bricklayer. Corroborative evidence was given by Frederick M'Lean and Charles Webb. Sergt. O’Grady stated that he saw the accused outside the' Criterion Hotel just ■before 10 o’clock, tie was slightly under the influence of liquor. Constable Finch, who arrested accused, gave evidence. He saw accused put out of the Criterion Hotel a few minutes before 10 o’clock. About 10.40 Hall complained to him of accused’s behaviour, and subsequently he arrested accused in the Octagon. When first he went after accused the latter bad gone off down the street and turned round again, as if to suggest that he had come from the vicinity of the Post Office. Mr Cooke, for the defence, said it must be apparent to his Worship that this was a rather striking ease—a very peculiar case indeed. It seemed incredible that any man could have behaved as this man was alleged to have done—that on a Saturday night, when there were many people about, that when three persons were standing on the footpath, an utter stranger should come along and' use such filthy language. Ho referred to the evidence that, they had hoard, and pointed out. a number of what ho considered discrepancies. Taunt denied that he was the person complained of. Mr Cooke called' Frederick Webster, who said that he saw the policeman accost accused, and then two other men rushed in and told the constable that Taunt was not the man who had committed the offence. The. policeman, having this assurance, allowed Taunt to go away. Alexander Webster gave similar evidence.

His Worship said that on the evidence before him he had no doubt that, the accused w r as guilty. W 7 as any evidence to be offered as to his previous character? B. H. Necs, accused’s employer, gave evidence as to his character. He was a good and reliable workman, and he was able to give him a first-class character. \ His Worship, addressing Taunt, said that he had, by reason of the good' character given him, just escaped gaol. The offence was a bad one. however, and must be severely punished. He would be fined £5, and costs (275), or in default of payment, he would be imprisoned for one month.