AFTER FOOTBALL DINNER.

Pahiatua Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 12452, 19 September 1933, Page 2

AFTER FOOTBALL DINNER.

INDECENT LANGUAGE. OFFENCE AT PONGAROA. In the Pahiatua Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr J. Miller S'. M.. J amen Leeming was barged that on July 26th, at Pongaroa. lie did use iidecent language * in the main street. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Constable Prussing conducted the case for the police and Mr .Cf Lloyd, of Ibyinevirke, represented the defendant. Constable Prussing said the charge arose out of a little dispute after a football dinner at Pongaroa. It was alleged that defendant used the language when being taken out of a- car to "be put to bed in the boardinghouse.

In evidence, Constable <J. AV. Gainey said that on Saturday evening, July 26tli, at about 11 Ji.m., a car pulled up outside Mr Bunn’s boardinghouse in Pongaroa. Several got out of the car and defendant remained in. His friends tried to get him out of the car and defendant called them a certain name. When he was told that witness was nearby defendant said: “Fetch the out of the car and carried into the boardinghouse where he remained for a- while and then came out. As he walked out under the verandah he said: “ the cop.” Witness told Deeming to moderate his language. The latter went and got his horse and as he was walking back he tripped over some firewood and swore again. As he passed the constable he said: “Good-night Air Gainey. *’ The language was used in quite a loud voice. There were no women or children tibout at the time, only defendant’s football mates. He was very drunk at the time. To Air Lloyd, the constable admitted that * there were quite a number about including Pat Donovan, Edginton, Gordon and Edgar Wright, Stan Aleech, Stan Heath and Harold Robbie, Russell Bunn and Roy Johnston. Teeming was the only one using bad language. He was infuriated at being dragged out of the car. Donovan, secretary of the club, said to witness that they would put defendant to bod. Others could have heard the foul language used by Teeming as he came out of the boardinghouse. If was pitch dark at the time. The language could have been heard in the boardinghouse or store. AVhen sober there was not a better man in the district. Counsel said that if there were no women about then not a great deal of harm had been done, nad it ? The Alagistrate was quick to retort that if such language had been used then harm certainly had been done % That sort of language could not be allowed in a main street, even in Pongaroa. Alfred Russell Bunn, hoardinghouse proprietor at Pongaroa, remembered - some men trying to bring Teeming into the- boardinghouse. He admitted hearing a lot of “bad language from the different men. Constable Prussing: "Was Teeming swearing?” Witness: “Why pick on him?” The Magistrate: “Don’t be insolent. Answer the questions.” AA itness said all the men were swearing, using the usual common swear-words. One particular person did most of the swearing and it was not Teeming. He admitted hearing defendant say “ the cop,” Teeming having been provoked into swearing.” To counsel,. witness denied hearing some of the worst language set out in the charge. Defendant was fairly drunk. Answering Constable Prussing he admitted that a window was broken m his boardinghouse during the struggle to get defendant in but he did not know who did it. Percy Donovan, carrier, and secretary of the Puketoi Rugby SubCnion said that on the night of the alleged offence, after a football smoke concert, he drove defendant down to the boardinghouse to get him a bed. Defendant could not have been any more drunk than he was. Bad language was used but he could not say definitely who by. He had had a little drink himself that night. Stanley Meech, scrub-cutter, said he worked on the same station as defendant and attended the smokeconcert on the night of the trouble. He helped to get defendant out cf the car at the boardinghouse and he did not hear any bad language used then. He heard a hit later when all were swearing. He could not say that defendant swore or that the language was very bad either. He denied speaking to defendant afterwards and suggesting that he plead guilty to the charge. Defendant was not capable of enunciating ins words clearly. He was not saying anything in particular, just yelling

Mr Tloyd said he was afraid the cise 0 wltnesses were not very pre-

_, ‘tuess told the Bench that most f 1 , th , e men were sober, one or two had had a drop too much but there °£ e - cot case- He denied Constable Gainey’s statement that defendant swore when he fell over some wood. «m“in!\ PrnSsills (to witness): Would it be natural for a man to use an oath if he fell over a bit of wood in the dark?” Witness: “No.” The constable: “Would you?” W odd ” S 8: “ N °’ 1 think I

The constable: “Well, 1 would” Roy Johansen a shepherd on Mr Burhng’s Woodlands Station, said defendant was hopelessly drunk. All were using bad language but he could not attribute any specifically to defendant. He did hear Teeming say: I m drunk Jt’s a . ” ?i not eoin 5 ar) y more of these smoke concerts.”

In opening the defence Mr Llovd said the defendant knew nothing at all of what happened so the Churl; would have to rely on other witnesses. The language set out in the charge was filthy and the only evi-

denee of it so far was given by the constable. He thought, if the truth was told, that the constable had probably been exaggerating. It was quite likely that a good deal of bad language had been used (one would expect it after a smoke concert). Jn view of the evidence counsel said it was proposed now to plead guilty to the more or less mild language but not to the foul language indicated in the charge. The Magistrate said he was satisfied that all had been using bad language and that the constable did hear Teeming. Constable Prussing said that Constable Gainey had declared that when sober defendant was quite a respectable, honourable man, but when drunk he was a blackguard, as his record showed.

The Magistrate said that as tlie expenses were heavy he would not impose so heavy a fine as he had intended. Defendant would be convicted and fined £3, Court costs £1 6s and witnesses expenses £6 14s in default six weeks’ imprisonment!