REPORTER AND COMEDIAN.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume L, Issue 12240, 14 June 1909, Page 3

REPORTER AND COMEDIAN.

A CHRISTCHURCH ASSAULT CASE.

COMEDIAN FINED £]0

£Por Press Association.)

CHRISTCHURCH, June 12

Ted Kalman, comedian, connected with Rickards' Vaudeville Company, appeared at the Police Court this morning charged with assaulting Stanley East, a newspaper reporter. Mr H. "W. Bishop, S.M., was on the Bench. _ Mr Wright appeared for the complainant and Mr Cassidy for the defendant.

Mr Cassiay said his client pleaded guilty under provocation. There had been general talk between the parties and in the discussion defendant had lost his temper. Kalman was a man of good character, and had never been before a Court before. He was a member of Richards' Vaudeville Company, which had been playing in Christchurch all the week. Yesterday Kalman saAV East, and asked him if he wrote.a notice appearing in the "Lytteltori Times," commenting on his (Kalman's) perform, ance . East admitted writing the notice, and ; after some discussion, Kalman struck him in the heat of the. moment, an action which he now regretted. Mr Wright said counsel's explanation amounted to a plea of not guilty. The case was a most important one so far as journalists were concerned. East was a reporter for the "Lyttelton Times," and part of his duties was to criticise theatrical performances. In one ; of his turns defendant sang a number of comic songs, interspersed with ''patter." East was present at the .first night of the entertainment, with his wife,, in his official capacity, and described parts of Kalman's turn as disgusting and some of his stories as vulgar and suggestive. This criticism was quite justified, and was fair and moderate. East would have been lacking in his duty if h© had not drawn attention to the matter. Counsel quoted some of the expressions used by Kalman that were complained of. -Yesterday morning defendant came across .the road in Gloucester Street and accosted East. He asked East if he wrote the notice in the "Times," and East said lie did, whereupon. Kalman struck him a blow on the face, accompanying at with' a -foul epithet. Defendant followed East up and struck him again. He kihocked him down-in the office*and struck him several further blows. •

' The Magistrate said if the criticism was fair and justified he would regard the matter as a very serious one. Continuing, Mr Wright said if. a fine were inflicted it would only advertise Kalman, and show that a company could bring round a boxing man and so gag the press of the town.- . Stanley East deposed that he attended the Theatre Royal on Monday night and 2wrote the criticism of Rickards' Vaudeville Company. Kalman's songs nearly all contained disgusting and suggestive features, his patter and stories also being disgusting. The general, trend of the turn was decidedly vulgar. He felt it his duty to draw public attention to the matter.^ Yesterday .morning witness saw the defendant, and after asking witness if he wrote the notice, and witness replying in the affirmative, Kalman hit him oh the jaw. He followed witness up and hit him again.* He knocked him down as he waa going up the stairs of the office. ./ ', s^ To Mr Cassid^: Witness was: - told that the objectionable features in defendant's turn had been dropped out. Kalnian-did not ask witness why he did, not refrain from his hostile criticism after these features had ben eliminated. Nothing was said about the ladies of the company. ' ?

Evidence supporting witness's account was given by three other witnesses. Behjamin Throp, City Council inspector, was called for the purpose of proving that he had lodged an official objection to some of Kalman's stories and songs. , Mr Cassidy. objected. The Magistrate: It is a question, of the material used by this man. Was it

vulgar filth or was it fit to be used in a mixed audience?

I -Mr Cassidy said he did not intend to go into that aspect. The Magistrate: _We may have to if you attempt to set up justification. Mr Gassidy said everything that was objected to was dropped out after the first performance. The Magistrate: I shall take the criticism so far as being justified. If the question is raised evidence in support of the criticism may be called in. Outlining the the case for the defence Mr Cassidy said Kalman did assault j East and made no attempt to justify his ■ action. He had got into conversation j with East, and asked him Avhy he did ; hot discontinue, his hostile criticism afi ter the objectionable features had been dropped out of them. The Magistrate: You are setting up justification. Mr Cassidy: The press has the power of attacking people right and left. v It is a very dangerous thing to say any- ' . thing about ,a paper. I was in the theatre at the time, and those present did not seem to follow the criticism. Kalman's turn was applauded, and there was much laughter.The Magistrate: I have heard the filthiest things applauded. Men will applaud stories in a smoking-room that they would not take their wives to hear. Mr Cassidy : What was complained -of was dropped out after the first nightf. It was received by - the audience with great pleasure. The Magistrate: You are asking me to think that you would approve of that sors of stuff if your wife was present. : Mr Cassidy: I didn't say my wife. The Magistrate: Well, my wife, then. Mr Cassidy: The audience appreciated it. The Magistrate: Well, I don't think much of the audience. Continuing, counsel said Kalman told East he should leaves ladies alone, and East was alleged to have said that they were no ladies, whereupon Kalman lost his temper. Magistrate i This stuff was dropped out after the first night. We owe something to the press then. The defendant. Edward Kalman, said that while standing outside his 'boardinghouse, opposite the "Times" office> he saw East and crossed over to him. Witness felt very upset at being dragged through the papers each day. . /Ehe Magistrate: What did you object to? ■''•-' Witness:-The term "disgusting." The Magistrate: That's a matter of opinion. < Witness: I've been all over the world. The Magistrate: You're in Christchurch, now, that's our world for the meantime. Continuing, witness said he told East h« might leave the ladies alone. East replied that they were no ladies. .Witness then lost his temper, and he fell down on the steps and called out "Murder." Witness did not knock' him down; "'••"■Mr Wright: East doesn't say anything about ladies. He denied making anything but reference to the first notice- ~" . Cross-examined^by Mr Wright: Allan Hamilton, manager of the company, told him on Tuesday that he understood that/there was something in witness's, turn that was objected to. .Witness agreed to cut anything out, and cut put the wortfs that the stage manager' objected to. Witness had heen pointed out in the streets as the subject of the paragraphs appearing in the "Times." In reply to further questions -witness said,:,"! cait?t: help people's tas&*; it's a variety show;" The ladies of the company had been referred to, and witness asked East if he wrote those notices; and he said he did. He denied punching East when he was down. East did' not stop to argue like a gentleman, or per-, haps the assault would not have been committed. "The criticism was unfair," the defendant complained. "He should have written to me and said that unless I cut the parts out " -^Magistrate: That's a new view of, a (newspaper's ethics. .-T wish sometimes: 'the*newspapers would first write to me, but they don't. Charle Stewart, member of the Rickards' Company, detailed the circum- | stances of the assault as he had witJ nessed them. He said there was a good deal of feeling among the members of ]• the company^in. regard torbhe references - made to;the'ladies and vto the absenco of generally.- ■' : : : Cross-examined: Companies felt sore at unfavourable criticism. There was often talk .of chastising critics, but nothing ever came of it. They had discuss, ed, the criticism under notice, but they were getting pretty well used to the "Times;" . This concluded the evidence. . The Magistrate said the case was a very simple one. He was notpreparjsd J to admit that the newspapers of Glirigtchurch were hypercritical in these matters. If vulgar stuff—almost filth—was used on the stage,- he did not tiiihk a, paper could be called hypercritical in taking up .the matter in its report. The newspapers attempted to lead public opinion in this matter and to set up\as* high a standard of public decency as was possible or reasonable. He, for one, thought that the reporter, in reviewing { and drawing public attention to the matter was acting rightly. People should be protected from having to listen to. stuff that could not be used in v draw-ing-room or among decent people. The fact that some enjoyed it was nothing, because it was applauded by "gods" or dirty-minded people that was not ihe true tone of public opinion. It was to the credit of the company that that sort of stuff should have been dropped out on the second night, and the public owed the best of gratitude to the paper for haying drawn attention to the fact that objectionable matter was being purveyed. Where a reporter was carrying out his public.duty xightly and was justified he was'entitled to the fullest protection. Defendant had clearly used had language. Ho had knocked down East, and followed him "up and continued the assault. He did not agree with Mr Wright that no adequate punishment could be meted out. by'a fine. He was not prepared to brand the defendant as o gaolbird. "After I have voiced the opinion," Mr Bishop contimied, "held by respectable people, that tjiere should be no attempt on the part of persons when they feel- aggrived by newspaper criticism to.go and assault a reported, if exception is taken to the general tenor of the criticism, complain should bo made to itha management of the paper. I am going to deal out em- j plary punishment. Defendant is fined £10 with costs." :