DISORDERLY BEHAVIOUR

Taranaki Daily News, 21 June 1928, Page 11

DISORDERLY BEHAVIOUR

DANCE AT KORU DISTURBED YOUNG MSN GRANTED PROBATION. ‘•DEPLORABLE STATE OF AFFAIRS.” MAGISTRATE'S STERN CRITICISM. A etern castigation of four young men who were stated to have been chiefly responsible for a violent disturbance of the leap year ball at Korn on March 17 wag uttered by Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., in the Police Court at New Plymouth yesterday, after he had entered convictions against them on a number of charges. The evidence, he said, revealed a deplorable state of affairs, and if they went on as they had been going recently they would soon join the ranks of the gaol population. The defendants were admitted to probation for a period of either six or twelve months, under certain special conditions. The four defendants, the charges against them, and the punishments meted out were as follow:William Paraval Leonard Knight, plumber, New Plymouth.—Not guilty of assaulting Cyril Charles Vickers. Guilty of behaving in a disorderly manner, of using indecent language, and of using insulting language to Clara Green, one of the M.’sC. at the dance: Admitted to probation for twelve months. Jack Earley, plumber, New Plymouth.—Not guilty of assaulting Joseph Beggs. Guilty of behaving in a disorderly manner and of using indecent language: Admitted to probation for twelve months. Edgar Seamark, carpenter, New Plymouth. —Not guilty of assaulting Patrick Norman Raill. Guilty of behaving in a disorderly manner and of using indecent language: Admitted to probation for six months. Edward Anthony, grocer’s assistant, Omata. —Not guilty of assaulting Patrick Norman Raill. Guilty of behaving in a disorderly manner and of using indecent language: Admitted to probation for six months.

Special conditions of the probation in each ease are that they do not stay out after 9 p.m. each night, that they do not go to dances, that they take out prohibition orders against themselves, and that they do not enter licensed premises.

In addition, each defendant was ordered to pay £4 Ils 7d towards the costa of the prosecution, 14 days being allowed in which to pay. CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. When the hearing of the case was resumed yesterday, further evidence was given on behalf of the defendants, for whom Mr. A. A. Bennett appeared. Frederick Walter Higgins, a factory employee who arrived at the dance about eleven o’clock, said ho heard a lot of swearing going on, and saw a certain amount of fighting, but the swearing appeared to be coming from the bystanders rather than from the fighters. Beggs and Earley were fighting, and also Knight and Vickers. Seamark appeared to be trying to keep the crowd back. In reference to the "cake episode,” mentioned by Mr. Bennett, witness said the supper was not brought out to him by the defendant Leonard Knight, but by his brother. Cakes were brought to witness and his friend Prideaux, who were outside. Ronald Sanger, a farm hand, said he went to the dance in company with Anthony. During the course of the evening he saw Raill come up and hit Seamark on the jaw from behind. Seamark was dazed, so witness held him up. Witness did not hear any obscene or Indecent language in the hall during the first dance after supper, though he was practically sure to have heard it had it been going on. There was some bad language outside the hall, but in the darkness he was unable to identify the speakers. He saw Knight get Vickers down, and that Earley had Beggs down, but he did not hear them swearing, He saw Raill strike Seamark with a ‘‘sort of a back-swipe.” Senior-Sergeant McCrorie: Didn’t you eay, "Come on boys; well clean up the whole * issue? Witness: I deny that.

Aren’t you known as one of the most foul-mouthed persons in the district?— No.

Haven’t you been warned away from acme of the dance halls, Hurford Road for instance?—No. Not that I’m aware of.

Weren’t you making a hissing noise at the Koru dance and making yourself generally objectionable?—No. Raymond Elliot, engineer, Vogeltown, said that to his knowledge there was no bad language used by Knight or any of the other defendants, ■Senior-Sergeant McCrorie: You are obviously on the side of the defendants. Witness: No. You have been in trouble before?— No. You have been before the court?— Do I have to answer that? The magistrate: Yes. “TARZAN THE APE.” Witness; On two occasions there was trouble, onee over a scrimmage in a church at Fitzroy, and another time over a disturbance in a shed near the gasworks. I was admitted to probation. George Owen Knight, brother of one of the defendants, corroborated what the previous witnesses had said to the effect that defendants were not, as far as he knew, responsible for the fighting and bad language. Senior-Sergeant McCrorie: Weren’t you creating a disturbance yourself?— No. Didn’t you rush round calling out: "I’m Tarzan the Ape?”—No. Did you see Raill strike Seamark! — Yes. He struck him from behind.

Describing the affair outside the hall, John Prideaux, law clerk, said that he saw the struggling going on. At first Earley seemed to bo keeping the crowd back, then Seamark walked round, asking the people to keep back and give those engaged in the struggle on the ground a ruir go.” Witness did not see anyone strike Seamark, but he saw Seamark turn round bleeding at the mouth, and say that he had had four teeth knocked out.

Witness saw Earley and Beggs struggling, and would most certainly have heard bad language had Earley said it, but he did not. Witness would probably have beard Knight swearing had the

latter done so, but he did not hear any obscenity from him. The bad language appeared to come from the crowd.

Senior-Sergeant McOiorie: Did you pay to go in?-—Not at the time as I did not think it was worth it, coming so late. I subsequently paid. . As soon as the court proceedings w<ye impending?—No. Before I knew there were to be any court proceedings. Do you think it was a fair thing to have supper and not pay for it?—l did not ask them to bring me out any supper.

When you saw all this fighting going on, weren’t you man enough to step in and try to put a stop to it?—l did not want to get mixed up in the business. Mr. Bennett: Very wisely, too. Alma Johnson, of New Plymouth, the first girl witness to be called for the defence, said the story that Knight had gone round the hail swearing to all and sundry was ridiculous. She did not hear any Obscene language in the hall, and though she heard bad language outside, she eould not say who said it. Senior-Sergeant McCrorie: Who approached you to come here to give evidence, Miss Johnson?—l got a summons. Didn't anyone approach you about giving evidence?—They asked us if we would, and we agreed to, if we got a summons. EVIDENCE OF THE GIRLS. Evelyn Layman, of New Plymouth, said that while she would not go as far as to state that Miss Green had told an untruth, yet she felt sure that Knight had not uttered an obscene word to Miss Green on his way out of the hall. Miss Green must have misunderstood him. Knight had certainly not gone round the hall uttering bad language to all and sundry. She did not hear any obscene language. There were no noticeable signs of liquor about any of the defendants, to her knowledge, and she did not see any empty liquor bottles about, nor did she have any liquor herself. Queenie Bishop, of New Plymouth, who together with the two previous witnesses had been sitting with Barley about supper-time, said that she was sure there was no obscene language used during the altercation in the hall, or she would have heard it. This brought to a conclusion the case for the defence, and Mr. Bennett asked permission to address the court. Permission being granted, he said that the evidence undoubtedly disclosed a most deplorable state of affairs, and he did not want it to be thought that he defended or condoned the conduct of the evening, Senior-Sergeant McCrorie: I again ask, as I have asked before, why counsel should bo allowed to address the court on the evidence after the conclusion of the Magistrate’s Court case. It is contrary to the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act,

The magistrate: There is something in that, But I propose to hear Mr. Bennett.

Continuing, Mr. Bennett submitted that it was unfair to cast the blame of the affair on the four defendants. Ho submitted that the evidence of the witnesses for the police was on the whole highly coloured and exaggerated, and that at least one of the Koru men Was certainly involved himself. In the matter of fighting, the Koru men were very actively concerned. He need only refer to the attacks of Beggs on Earley and of Raill on Seamark. He freely admitted that Knight was culpable of bad behaviour in telling Miss Green to shut her mouth. But this was trivial compared with the Charge of indecent or obscene language against Knight, and concerning which the evidence was so much at variance. In this respect ho would like to say that he thought Miss Green had given the most disinterested and unbiassed version of the affair that the court had had. COMMENTS BY MAGISTRATE. He had listened to the ease for many hours, and had heard a great deal of evidence, said the magistrate. While it was necessary that before convictions should be entered the evidence against the defendants should be conclusive, yet evidence could not be counted up by heads, but must be weighed, and the statements balanced one against the other. The evidence of the police witnesses struck him, as it must have struck everyone else, as the plain statement of a very regrettable abuse of hospitality. The evidence of the defence, on the other hand, was very difficult to believe. It was difficult to believe that the Koru people would go to the trouble of organising a dance, arranging for a free bus and providing supper, and would then set upon their guests and assault them. He thought that the defence protested altogether too much. It seemed that the evidence for the defence tended to cloud the whole issue and that an attempt bad been made to throw dust in his eyes. It was a dreadful thing that a dance should be disturbed in such a manner. The mere incident of speaking to a woman as Knight had spoken to a woman was deplorable, ’ The mere suggestion by the defence that a constable should be carrying notes to witnesses outside the court was astonishing, and the idea was only possible in people whose minds were warped. Taken as a whole, the evidence for the defence was unsatisfactory, and he was very sorry that girls had been brought I forward in an attempt to bolster up ■ that defence. The evidence showed that defendants had made public nuisances of themselves. Witnesses stated that they had drunk liquor, aird there seemed no doubt that this was so. It was perhaps due to that liquor that they had done what they had, If people in the country wanted to hold entertainments, they should be able to do so without interference, What right had the defendants to go round creating the disturbances they had? On the disorderly behaviour charges, the magistrate convicted all four defendants. LANGUAGE STRONG INDEED. In regard to the indecent and obscene language charges, ho said there was no doubt that the language used was strong indeed, and it seemed that the words detailed in the charges were very likely to have been those used. The particular bad language which each defendant was found guilty of using was as follows:—Knight: "There is no here can put me out.” Earley: "Let me get up, you . To - with the police.” Seamark: "I’m th© third man; If any here wants to have a go.” Anthony: "I am against these Koru They threw me out once before.”

After warning the defendants of the serious nature of the offences of which he had found them guilty, and for which

they were liable to a substantial term of imprisonment or heavy fines, the magistrate said that they had not only been exceedingly troublesome to the Koru people, but had also been exceedingly troublesome to the police, and had made nuisances of themselves. The Koru people must be protected. He had a good mind to send them to prison, which was what they deserved, but he did not like sending young men to prison except in extreme cases. He proposed instead to admit them to probation, He hoped that during their term of probation they would think over what they had done, and would try to make themselves into decent citizens. Going on as they were, they would soon join the population that filled the gaols. During the period, of their probation the people of Koru would be protected from them. They must understand that if they broke the terms of their prohibition orders they might be sentenced on the charges for which they had been convicted, or else pm-lshed for breaking the order. In either case it would mean gaol.