USE OF INDECENT LANGUAGE

Southland Times, Issue 23693, 16 December 1938, Page 2

USE OF INDECENT LANGUAGE

Pie-Cart Proprietor Fined PENALTY OF £5 IMPOSED BY MAGISTRATE William Graham, pie-cart proprietor, was charged in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Mr R. C. Abernethy, S.M., with using indecent language in a public place and also with behaving in a disorderly manner in a public place. Senior Sergeant Kelly conducted the case for the police and Mr T. V. Mahoney appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty to both charges. Constable P. McGrail said that at 620 p.m. on Tuesday he was on duty at the show grounds gates with Con- ■ stable D. Baxter. Constable H. Lapwood was also there, but he was not on duty. He saw the accused and Eric Clarence Taylor coming towards the gate, but he did not take any particular notice. The accused walked up, looked into Constable Baxter’s face and said: “Am I drunk?” The witness explained to him that there was no reason why he should approach them unless it was for some particular purpose. The accused then made the excuse that he wanted to see DetectiveSergeant R Thompson. The accused said that he would not go away and that they had nothing on him. He said he was not like Constable Knapp, who was a liar and committed perjury. Taylor went away on a bicycle. Graham backed away towards the railway line, waving his arms and saying, “Take notice I am not talking to the police now.” He also called out: “I am not like that Knapp, who committed perjury.” The witness realized that trouble might result and he arrested the accused. Graham was under the influence of liquor, but his condition did not warrant his arrest. From his attitude it appeared that he came to make trouble. As far as the witness knew, Graham had not attempted to see DetectiveSergeant Thompson since. “Were there any members of the public who could hear him?” asked counsel. ;

“Yes. There were some people passing into the show and they were bound to hear him,” said the witness.

CONSTABLE’S EVIDENCE Constable Baxter gave corroborative evidence. He said he advised the accused, who was in a very antagonistic mood, to go away several times. “Has there been apy trouble between Graham the younger members of flie police force?” asked Mr Mahoney. “There may have been, but I am not prepared to say so,” replied the witness. Do you think that Graham came on the scene with the intention of making trouble ?—Absolutely. Evidence was also given by Constable Lapwood. Eric Clarence Taylor said in evidence that the attitude of the police towards the accused was definitely against him. The witness explained that he rode away on his bicycle to ring for a taxi at the hospital corner. The accused wanted to find DetectiveSergeant Thompson and he also wanted to go to the pie -cart. When witness returned Graham was standing apart from the constables. He was not doing anything to attract attention and was not calling out. When the taxi arrived the accused walked across to the car and got in. The two constables also went into the car. It was not until then that he knew Graham was under arrest.

Theophilus John Sinclair Daniels, who was in charge of, the turnstile at the show grounds gates, said he remembered seeing the accused talking to members of the police force. However, he heard nothing. He did not gather that there was any ' trouble. When Graham was standing apart, he was standing quietly, as far as he could see. He did not think he would have heard Graham even if he had said anything. The wind was blowing away from him and there was also noise coming from the show grounds. “I could* riot say if the people coming in would hear anything,” said the witness to the Magistrate. Eric James Barron, taxi-driver, said he received a ring to go down to the show grounds and pick up Graham. When he went down Graham came over to him and said he would not heed the taxi because he was going into the show grounds again. Then one of the constables asked him to get into the car and he did so. Two constables also got into the car and witness drove to the police station.' EVIDENCE OF THE ACCUSED The accused said he decided to leave the show grounds soon after six o’clock. ' He was passing the last stand when he saw- a girl in fancy dress standing near a tent. He thought he knew her. He had another look and then recognized her as the daughter of a cousin of his wife. “I went over and said, ‘What are you doing here?’,” continued the accused. “She said that she was working there ! and I explained that these shows were i no good to her. Three men were ; nearby and one said to me: ‘Don’t interfere with our business or I will kick you in the guts.’ I talked to the girl at the side of the tent and she stalled to cry. I then said: ‘lf you won’t come I will get someone to take you away’.” The witness said Taylor was _ with him during this time. The ■witness had seen Detective-Sergeant Thompson during the afternoon and he thought that he would go to the police station and see him about the girl. When he got to the gates there were two constables in uniform and one in plain clothes standing there. He went to them and asked where he could find Detective-Sergeant Thompson. One* of the constables said he might find him at the police station. Constable McGrail said to him: “Get away. You are like a big smell and you are always complaining. ’ By that the witness thought he was referring to the fact that he had reported two of the policemen in the last two years. Constable Lapwood also said: “You are only a big bluff and you had better get away.” Later, he walked away from the constables and waited until the taxi arrived. When the car arrived he told the driver he did not require him because he was going into the show grounds again to see if he could find Detective-Sergeant Thompson. However, one of the constables told him to get in and he did so STATEMENTS DENIED The witness denied what the con* stables said about the words he used. If they said that he used those words then they were committing perjury, He said. “I am satisfied that the constables did not bait the accused,” stated the Magistrate. “I am also satisfied that the accused was not in full possession of himself, otherwise he would not have done what he did. I accept the evidence of the constables that the words were used.” The Magistrate said he would not convict the accused on the charge of disorderly behaviour. The accused was fined £5 on the charge of using indecent language in a public place, in default 14 days’ imprisonment. He was ordered to pay costs 2/-.