PARADE IN LOIN CLOTH.

Wairarapa Age, 30 July 1932, Page 7

PARADE IN LOIN CLOTH.

MAN COMMITS NO OFFENCE. CHARGE DISMISSED. WELLINGTON, July 29. Frederick Perrin, the man who paraded Willis Street clad only in a loin cloth and a pair of shoes, was declared not to have committed any offence when Mr. E. Page, S.M., gave his reserved decision to-day on a charge against Perrin of behaving in a disorderly manner. The Magistrate held that while the appearance of a person in grotesque costume in the public streets might cause some excitement that in itself, in the absence cf other circumstances, did not constitute disorderly behaviour.

“The Section under which the defendant is charged/ 1 he said, “renders liable to a penalty any person who in, or in view of, any public place, behaves in a riotous, offensive, threatening, insulting, or disorderly manner or uses any threatening, abusive, or insulting words or strikes or fights with any other person.” The question Is whether the defendant’s action brings him within this Section. “The defendant walked along the footpaths, and save for the fact that he was thus clad, his conduct was in no way riotous or disorderly. His statement is that he was going to the Minister of Employment to show him what would be the effect of the present scale of wages paid to workers employed on unemployed schemes. The defendant’s presence on the streets in this grotesque garb would, no doubt, attract some attention, and might tend to cause a number of the public to follow him. The same might be said of methods quite commonly adopted for the purpose of advertisement. One occasionally sees, for example, a clown in full dress, paraded through the streets to advertise a travelling circus; or perhaps a bevy of young people, clad in South Sea Island costume, paraded to advertise a visiting picture. Having regard to the context, I think that, to come within the Section, something more than the mere appearance in a freak or unusual attire is required, something in the nature <?f noisy, quarrelsome, abusive, or unruly behavious disturbing to the public peace. None of that was present here, and I therefore think that it has not been shown that the defendant behaved in. a disorderly manner within the meaning of the Section. Nor do I think that, the garb that he was wearing can be held to be an indecent one so as to bring the defendant within the provisions of the Act relating to public decency. Boxers and wrestlers regularly appear and perform in public more scantily clad than was the defendant. In the result I think no breach of the Statute has been established. The information must be dismissed.”—(P.A.)