ALLEGED OBSCENE LANGUAGE.

Thames Star, Volume xxx, Issue 8381, 26 June 1899, Page 2

ALLEGED OBSCENE LANGUAGE.

Samuel Quadri was charged witL using obscene language within the hearing of passers-by near Grey street, Thames, on May 27. Mr. Clendon appeared for the, defendant, and pleaded "not guilty." Sergeant Clark .mentioned that the defendant had been twice brought be fore the Court on thei same charge. On the first occasion there >.was an error in the information, which was dismissed. On the second the case was withdrawing as the information was technically at fault. Constables Hodgson, Hooker and Davis gave evidence in support of the charge, whioh was mainly the same at reported when the case, was last be fore the Court. Mr. Clendon addressed the Court or. behalf of the defendant. He said the defence was threefold: (1) That the language was not used; (2) that if it was used it was not used by the defendant; and (3) if it was used it was not used within the hearing of passers-by, but in a public place. Mr. Clendon pointed out, thai in order to "hear" language within the meaning of the section it was necessary that the person hearing ii should be in a "public place," and the person using it not in a public place — whereas in this instance ' the place where the words- were alleged to have been used was a public place. ' Mr. Clendon then called James Ker nick, who stated that the place mentioned in the information was a pub lie street. He pointed it out on the plan. There was no na|me to the street. . To Sergeant Clark: J have no authority fro,m the Borough Council to produce the plan, and aim not prepared to swear that the road, as,marked, has ! been gazetted. Sergeant -Clark: Then your cvi idence is worth.nothing.

Mr. Clendon: That is what you say. The plan, is regarded as a record plan by the Borough Foreman. R , Sergeant Clark: You say it is « record plan. I say it is a record plan with a street on it which has nc name, and has never been gazetted.

Mr. Clendon asked if there were any necessity to continue the case after the evidence given. The Court decided to hear the evidence.

Leonard Izod-remembered the 27th May. He was close to Grey street or. the night, He heard a conversation between the police and some person whom he did not know at the time. He did not hear defend ant-use the words mentioned in tht information, but heard Jack Quadr ask the constable why they werf "dogging" the defendant. To Sergeant Clark: If the constables swore they were in Grey street wher the language was used they swore falsely. Unless the words were used ir a whisper he would have heard them. He had a drink at Puriri on the even ing of the occurrence, but that was all.

John Quadri stated that on the night in question he saw Miller, Kneebone, S}mith, and the defendant; in addition to the three constables. They were ori the railway side of DalWs. He went to tie wharf and

asked the constables -why they were shepherding the house. They asked if

"Mick was in bed.V The net and steam pipe obstructed the view of the constables. .-He.swore that the words on the information were not used by the defendant. The place was used by the public. Two of the constables were there for two> hours after.

To Sergeant Clark: 1 was there when the constables were there. 1 swear that I did not hear the language. I can't swear what the constables, heard. The language could not have been used without my hearing it. Ii they had heard; it I should have done so. I ajm not an interested party. L ■is not to my interest to get mj brother off.

In answer to Mr Clendon witness pointed out on the plan the position occupied by the constables on the occasion.

To the Court: I never heard the language mad© use of. Henry Smith, boat builder, stated that .the public used the place as a righ<>of-way. He was with John Quadri- and the others. Witness saw the constables leave the place. He did not hear any bad language used. The constables did not have a cleai view of Quadri's house.

To Sergeant-Clark: He was abso lutely certain that he was there on the night mentioned betveen' nine and ten o'clock. He had no watch tc tell the time by. He swore positively that he was there at the time. He had had no conversation with anyone in connection with the case.

To the Court: The steam pipe was 24ft long, and was sft from the ground. It would obstruct the view of the police. Eobert Miller stated that he was present, but did not hear the language used by the defendant. To Sergeant Clark: I could not say if the words were heard by the constables. He was asked to give evidence by the defendant,. He had been before the Court on small charges, such as vmaking fast to a buoy and furious riding, but never for assault. To Mr. Clendon: I never jmade ji statement to you of what I was going to say. s Frank Cogan was called by Mr. Clendon, but did not appeal*.

Richard Kneeboiie corroborated the last witness.

In answer to Sergeant Clark wit ness said he was standing closer to the defendant thato. the constables, and would have heard the language if i had been used.

The defendant denied using the words said to have been used. He swore positively that he did not. Thi constables could not have seen hin from where they stood. To Sergeant Clark: His brothe) did not escape from custody. Witnes: took him from the constable. Witnest did not hear any bad language used by anyone. He had no drink on the night mentioned. He had been pre viously before the Court on severa 1 occasions, but the -cause was always drink.

To Mr. Clendon: I have neve: been charged with ccftaimitting an. of fence when I was sober.

This concluded- the case for the de fence.

After consulting together for a fey minutes Mr. McDonnell said that sb witnesses had sworn the language wanot used and the three constables swore it was. In view of.the conflict ing evidence the Bench could do notli ing but dismiss the ease. The Court then adjourned.