DISTURBING A MEETING.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 80, 16 November 1911, Page 7

DISTURBING A MEETING.

A PERSISTENT' POLITICIAN. A FINE OF TWO POUNDS. At the Hawcra Magistrates Court on Tuesday William Smith pleaded not guilty, to a charge of having disturbed a public meeting in Hawera on the evening of November (sth. Sergeant Criilith said that on the date in question there was a public meeting at the Opera House when Mr. Pearce, a . candidate for the Patou seat, was speaking. The Opera House was well filled and amongst the audience was the defendant,.who kept frequently interjecting while the speaker was giving Ids address. Upon the order of the chairman, defendant was

twice removed from the building. The sergeant explained that the prosecution was not instituted by the . chairman of the meeting, but by the police. Hugh Knight Whittington, Mayor of Hawcra, and chairman of the meeting referred to, gave.evidence regarding defendant’s behaviour, and of his asking the constable to remove defendant. The Magistrate remarked that, at political meetings there was usually a certain amount, of lattitude allowed, and he asked what was the nature of the interruptions in the present case. Witness replied that defendant was continually interrupting the meeting and otherwise making a noise. He warned defendant several times to be, quiet. . , The defendant asked witness a number of questions, one of which was whether he did not think the interjections were reasonable and in'season. The witness : I don’t think so. Defendant stated that at a previous address three gentlemen were firing off interjections at the candidate, but the chairman did not take any notice of them.

The witness replied that he had never heard them. : Constable Flanagan also gave evidence regarding the disturbance caused by defendant’s interruptions and considered defendant’s action did certainly disturb the iheeting. It practically prevented the candidate during question time. from answering questions which were asked in other parts of the house. The constable added that when he asked defendant to leave he did so quietly. Replying to the Magistrate, witness said defendant was slightly under the influence of liquor. .- The defendant asked that the charge he dismissed. He said that in the information he was i charged with disturbing a public meeting, or a meeting for a lecture. He contended that there was no meeting of that description. It was simply a political address, and as his Worship had remarked, there was always a certain amount of lattitude allowed at, these meetings. He considered there was no lattitude allowed that night. He interjected because the candidate was misrepresenting facts. The candidate had said something about 100 per cent duty on hoots The Magistrate : I am not going to have a political argument here., He idded that a political address was a public meeting, a meeting at which a ■ortain amount of lattitude was allowed, and in his experience of chairuen it was seldom they called a man o order or had him put out of a milding unless the person had boon inreasonable. A candidate paid for the ball, and was entitled to have his iews heard, and if a man disagreed with them and did not wish to hear hem he had no right to disturb the neeting. The host tiling for such a lerson, if he did not wish to hear the lews, was to leave the hall. A man •ould. ask any questions, hut if the •peaker gave an answer that lie did ot' like—well, he had to accept it. '.Tie police had stated defendant was mt altogether sober. Defendant stoutly denied this. The Magistrate said it was clear hat defendant had disturbed the ■'neeting, and his Worship was quite atisfied that the chairman would not have had, defendant put out unless ■e had been the cause of some coniderahle interruption. This sort of hing would have to be stopped, as, it .as only fair to the candidates that heir views should lie heard.' Defendant would lie fined 40s,i with 9s costs. -“Star.”