A PATEA MEETING DISTURBED.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 46, 9 October 1911, Page 5

A PATEA MEETING DISTURBED.

FINE IMPOSED

At the Patea Magistrate’s Court

lagt Tuesday, W. J. Quayle, of Alton, >vas chai’ged with having, on September 22nd, disturbed a meeting in the Alton Hell. Defendant pleaded guilty, with no intention of creating a disturbance. In reply to His Worship, defendant said that he had not created a disturbance,, though he may have created an annoyance. ' His Worship held that this was one and the same thing. If defendant pleaded guilty with conditions he was peally pleading “not guilty.” Sergeant O’Brien, who conducted the case for the prosecution, said that the facts of the case were that defendant, during, the course of a lecture on no-license by the Rev. T. Fee, had made a disturbance by taking 4 into the hall which .gave , off a very offensive smell. James Gibbs, farmer of Alton, was the first witness called. He said he was chairman at the Rev. Fee’s lecture, during the course of which a very bad smell was created by something. The Windows had to be opened and several ladies had to put their heads out. Witness himself was sitting at the opposite end of the room, yet the smell gave him a very bad headache. He had no hesitation in saying the smell disturbed the meeting. He did see several young men leave the hall. Disturbances of other sorts were becoming very frequent in connection with entertainments, etc. Thomas Foreman, farmer, of Alton, corroborated the previous witness’ remarks regarding the horrible nature of the smell. He went outside, and when standing near the door, defendant came out and passed him, and as ha passed the game .smell was very strong. Later he found the bottle of mixture (produced by police) outside under an open window. The smell was something like the gas from carbide. ' ; ■ •

John Peat said he had gone to the meeting with defendant and a man named Power, and they sat down together in the back seat. He no-

ticed the smell and asked defendant what it was. Defendant told him to “smell the cork,” and held it to his

face. Defendant made a remark about “giving it a shake up.” He understood this referred to the material causing, the smell. Defendant cross-examined witness, who maintained that ho had held the cork to his face. -- A. Power, of Alton, endorsed the evidence of the previous witness as to going with him and defendant to the meeting. While sitting in, the hall defendant put his hand behind him and produced a cork which ho rubbed across witness’ nose. The smell was very offensive. Defendant had a handkerchief over his nose and he kept shaking a bottle behind him.

This closed the case for the prosecution.

His Worship, in giving judgment, said that the evidence proved defendant had let the smell loose in the hall, and the only object could have been to disturb the people. Ho then made a few straight remarks regarding the practice of young men doing these sort of things in such meetings and considering them huge jokes. People went there to hear various opinions, but he supposed that defendant thought he knew all about it, and because he thought he could not learn anything, he tried to prevent others doing so. In reply to the Bench, Constable Armour said that defendant had no previous convictions against him, and that he was a respectable married man.

Fined £l, court costs 15s, and witnesses’ expenses £2 Bs.