CHARGE OF INCITEMENT

Taranaki Daily News, 20 December 1929, Page 14

CHARGE OF INCITEMENT

CIVIL SERVANT IN COURT PENALTY CONVICTION MAY CAUSE MAGISTRATE DEFERS QUESTION. ■ Consideration of. the question of en : tering convictions against Leonard Lichfield Smith on charges of inciting a man to resist Constable Mitchell in the execution of his duty and of using obscene language in a public place was deferred for six months by the magistrate, Mr. R. W. Tate, at the New Plymouth Police. Court yesterday. The magistrate expressed the opinion that the defendant should be convicted, but took the action he did in view of the. severity of the penalty which the entering of a conviction would entail upon Smith, who was a civil servant and would lose his position if convicted. Smith was ordered to pay costs amounting to £4 2s. The charges arose out of language used in Egmoht Street on December 7 when Constable Mitchell was arresting two firemen from the ship Taranaki for drunkenness. Senior-Sergeant MeCrorie ( conducted the case for the police and i Mr. A, A., Bennett appeared for the defendant. The case was unfinished on ] the previous day and was concluded by the hearin's of the evidence for the defence of witnesses of the occurrence. Stanley Reilly, a labourer of New Plymouth, who was at the'scene with Telfar, said lie was standing alongside Smith practically all the time. To his knowledge Smith did not use any obscene language during the whole time. There was a great deal of noise and shouting going on and he heard obscene . language used, though he was positive it was not used by Smith. He heard "Smith say: “Fight fair” and “Don’t kick, him, you cow.” Cross-examined by Senior-Sergeant AfcCroric the witness . said he did not know, who used the bad language, though he was sure it was not Smith, but someone behind him. The senior-sergeant: How it is you don’t know who swore if you know it was not Smith?—There’s a difference between someone standing beside you and behind' you. ’ Another ‘ bystander, Francis D. R. Whiting, gave similar evidence. From the tone in. which the obscene language was. spoken he thought it would come from a. seaman and not from a local man. ,It appeared to be in a Scottish accent. •_ ' ’ ‘ . To the magistrate witness said he heard ■ the constable ask for assistance, but he did not give it because he thought someone else had already done so. EVIDENCE OF BYSTANDERS. Robert Fulton, union secretary, gave evidence on the same lines. He knew Smith well and knew his voice well and though there was obscene language from different parts of the crowd he was sure none was in Smith’s voice. He cpuld not recognise any particular accent among the sounds. The senior-sergeant: Who used the bad language?—l’m not prepared to say. But you’re here to tell the truth. Who. were they?—l knew the faces but not' the names. ■ You were not watching Smith all the time?—No. I was. watching the light. Then how do you linow that. Smith did not use the language?—l judged by the voice. * . How was it that you noticed Smith, so much? You were watching the fierht.—l did not hear his voice. °Mr. Tate: How do you account for the fact that Constable Mitchell said it was Smith who used the bad language? —I think the constable must have been so engaged with the seaman that he made a mistake. Herbert Reilly, a wharf labourer, said he heard obscene language, but Smith did not use it. The senior-sergeant: You weren t watching Smith all the time?—No. How do you know he did not use the language? —1 happened to look in his direction at the .time, • What was the language used?—l did not take so much notice. Why, then, did you look up to. see who used it? Why did you come to aive evidence? Did Smith approach you? —No. ■ . , How did you get here ? —I received a subpoena and I came. You weren’t approached? You just received a subpoena? —Yes. , . The language was not in Smiths voice?—No. . ' But you say you never heard Smith s voice .before? You .only, had him pointed out to you that night?—Yes. . L How, then, do you know that it was or was not his voice? Can you answer that? —No, ,

Mr. Bennett quoted an example of the bad language used and Reilly said he thought he had heard those words used. Reilly could not answer the senior-sergeant's question why he .remembered .the words then when he cotild not remember them before. He ha,d known Smith for nine years and for three years had worked in the same room with him, said Robert H. Dunlop. : lie had been associated with him outside the office arid had never heard him use obscene language nor refer to anyone as “matey:” Mr. Bennett submitted that the words used by Smith were not legally an incitement and if they , were there was no evidence to fehow they d:d incite the man at all. ... After 'the magistrate had retired to consider the evidence he gave it as his opinion that Smith should be convicted on both charges. ■ Mr. Bennett asked Mr. Tate to hear a suggestion from him before a conviction °was entered in view of the serious nature of the penalty that would be suffered by Smith. Smith had been m a state of suspense and agitation in connection with liiq two sous for some time and the culminating point hud been reached on the morning of the day the alleged offences took place. .It was impossible to- imagine the anguish of sfful he was suffering that day, and the strain to which he had been subjected, coupled with a certain amount of drink he had taken, bad been responsible for his being in the position he was. It was apparent that others had used bad language as well as Smith and it seemed hard he should be the one singled out and that he in his position would, as the result of a conviction, be subjected to a penalty far in excess of what any other offender would suffer. A conviction meant his leaving the Civil Service and his less of any claim to superannuation. In the circumstances Mr. Bennett suggested the magistrate might consider adjourning the case and putting Smith on his good behaviour, so tluat if he did not behave he would, suffer the full penalty. Mr. Tate: If that had been the attitude to begin with it might- have been easier. What do you propose? Mr. Bennett suggested the case should be reconsidered at the end of six months. The penalty was too drastic and Smith’s work as an officer of the Civil Serviee was beyond question. Smith agreed to take out a prohibition order against himself voluntarily. Senior-Sergeant MeCrorie thought a conviction should be recorded, though he did not press for 1 the imposition of a sentence, which could come up in six months. ' Mr. Bennett: I suggest;you will get as good a result by following the.course I suggest. • - . ‘ , Mr. Tate: I don’t know; I hope so.