COMMITTEE FIASCO

Southland Times, Issue 20112, 24 February 1927, Page 5

COMMITTEE FIASCO

CHARGE OF OBSCENE LANGUAGE. INCIDENT AT KAPUKA. ! At a sitting of the Police Court yesterday morning before Mr George Cruickshank, S.M., John E. Hansen was charged with that on January 15 at Kapuka he did behave iin a riotous manner in a public place; that !on the same date he did use obscene : language in a public place, to wit, the | Kapuka Hall. A further charge of using obscene language on the roadway was also preferred. Defendant was not represented by counsel and pleaded not guilty to all three charges. The prosecution was conducted by Sergeant Fox. In outlining the facts of the case Sergeant Fox said that the offences were allegedly committed at Kapuka. Towards the end of last year when it became known that the local school teacher was to be transferred, a committee was set up to go into the matter of a presentation. The defendant was chairman of that committee, on which there were several ladies. From the start the defendant and the secretary (Mr A. R. L. Jordan) did not hit it very well. The first serious difference came with the matter of the choice of a gift for the teacher. The secretary’s wife made the choice of an attache case and the defendant objected to this. It was agreed that the defendant should select a gift and that the teacher should take one of the two. The teacher chose the gift procured by Mrs Jordan and when the evening of the farewell came the defendant refused to make the presentation. At the conclusion of the usual concert and dance Mr Jordan called on those present to sing “Auld Lang Syne” as he noticed several were leaving whereupon the defendant rushed at him and used threatening and bad language. The language was used first in the hall and later in the road. The whole thing was a disgraceful episode in a usually quiet town. Arthur Robert Lancelot Jordan, fanner of Kapuka, stated that the evening of the farewell proceeded smoothly until the dance when defendant rushed at him. Someone else was endeavouring to bold him back. After the usual singing defendant was rowdy and wanted to fight witness as he apparently considered that the affairs had not been conducted to the best advantage. Witness then repeated the offensive language, which was used by defendant in the presence of a number of women and children. Immediately afterwards, outside the hall, the defendant abused everyone in the vicinity. He also addressed the remark to a certain lady that he would “slice her nose off.” The scene in front of the hall lasted for 20 minutes. The defendant appeared to be under the influence of liquor although witness described his condition as one of extreme fury. Witness detailed further incidents of the evening where abusive and offensive language was used and stated that as a result of the evening his wife reached home in a state of collapse. Her health had been affected and she had never been the same since. Corroborative evidence was given by three others who were present at the hall and at the dance. Hansen contended that if the farewell had been carried out according to the manner arranged by the committee there would have been no trouble at all. He made refer ence to the fact that Jordan told him at first that the receipts were £l9 and later informed him that only £l3 was taken. Witness admitted that he had taken more whisky and beer .than he could carry and in view of his condition was not prepared to say whether the language was used or not. In reply to a question as to why a balance sheet of the farewell had not been furnished Jordan stated that he would not furnish a balance sheet until all the accounts had been squared. He had had no complaints from other members of the committee. On the two charges of obscene language Hanseu was convicted and fined £3, Court costs 18/-, witnesses’ expenses £2 3/6. On the charge of riotous conduct he was convicted and fined £l, costs 12/- and was given one month in which to pay.