PROHIBITION LECTURER.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 16455, 6 June 1919, Page 5

PROHIBITION LECTURER.

FIXED FOR INSULTING LANGUAGE. Per Press Association. NAPIER, .June 5 At a .special silling of the Police Court this morning, M . D. Bailey, pro hibitiou lecturer, of Canada, was pro cecded against by Richard White, a returned soldier, for using alleged insulting language. Richard \Vlute. barman, said lie attested on May, 1915, ami saw service in Egypt and m France, wucre m July, It-iO, ho was wounded, iio was discharged in July, 1917, on .account of wounds receivetl in action. On Aprd U last ho attended a meeting at Port Ahunri, which had been puoliciy advertised. Ho was omp.oyed as a clerk for the Licensed Victuallers’ Association. Witness was wearing puttees and lus badge at the time of uie meeting. Defendant addressed the meeting, and wiiea question time arrived deieudant asked it there were any questions, and witness replied: “Acs, AH. liailcy.” Then defendant rose and said; “I think it is only fair to the audience that 1 should know the namo and occupation of my questioner and the wages received by the questioner.'’ Witness replied: "Would you like my birth certificate and marriage license '( 1. will toll you if you like. Aiy name is White, and 1 was a member ot the Expeditionary Force. Aiy occupation is that of a barman. 1 am a clerk to the Licensed Victuallers' Association, and because of that I am interested in tills question.” Ho thou asked some questions. The} dealt with iho prohmitiou question. Latoi, defendant bent over and pointed his linger at witness, saying; •Vou're a tin.lor .and I want to tell you tills: if you’ro engaged in such infamous traffic. you are nut lit to wear the. Ring’s uniform, you scoundrel.” Witness replied: “That's a lie, Air. Dailey. 1 lave been honourably discharged on account of wounds receiycd in action, and I am fit to wear Ido King’s uniform.”

After further exchanges the crowd’s attitude became threatening, and a cur with Baylcy in it drove away. It was alleged that Buylcy poked his tongue out defiantly. Air. Sladdcn, for the defence, maintained that the information would have to be dismissed, as no offence had been disclosed. The information did not allege the use of insulting language within the hearing of passers-by. '1 no evidence .showed that there were no passers-by.

The Bench intimated that they had decided that the case would have to proceed. Evidence for the defence was given denying the allegations that Baylcy caused the meeting to break up, and Baylcy himself staled that ho could not recollect the words he used, nor the interjections made, except that 'White had called him a liar. The Bench fined Baylcy the maximum amount, £5 with costs.