CASTLECLIFF SING-SONG CASE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXII, Issue 19346, 27 June 1925, Page 11

CASTLECLIFF SING-SONG CASE

INTERPRETATION OF DISORDERLY CONDUCT. “SHOTS AND SHELLS WERE FLYING.” ACCUSED EACH FINED £3. Prior to proceeding at the. Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning with the adjourned CastlecHff case in which James Ross and Richard Hammond were charged with disorderly conduct while drunk, and Edward Stewart and Ralph Stanley Nathan SiddeUs wore ; hnrged in respect to obstructing Constable Sheehan in the execution of his duty, Mr J. S. Barton, S.M., expressed the opinion that he was satisfied that SiddeUs was drunk, but the other accused might, get the benefit of the doubt. At the present stage he was prepared to deni with the cases of Ross and Hammond. In reviewing the facts of the case, His Worship pointed out that there was evidence of the company lining “ emptied out” of the Cast!'diff Hotel bar at closing time on the Saturday in question, and that one men'her was drunk and the others were under the influence of liquor. The constable requested the assemblage to go home, but, despite this, singing continued for half an hour. In Mr Barton’s opinion, it was clear that this was disorderly conduct, and he was prepared to submit a written ruling on the subject, providing Air Slipper, counsel for the defence, had no objections so far as the cases of Ross and Hammond were concerned.

In the legal argument that ensued between bench and counsel, Air Slipper submitted that disorderly conduct was something that embraced a breach of the peace, and that a breach of the peace was never intended to be a breach of silence. Ho contended that objection was never raised by the police to mass demonstrations, that were accompanied by goodwill, such as gatherings at electioneering times and for the purpose of welcoming back a hero. Legislation never intended that this class of conduct should be regarded as being disorderly. He submitted that the gathering in question was no more troublesome than religious gatherings or someone speaking on the street corner from a soap box.

Senior-Sergeant .Lopdell said that permits had to bp secured for such demonstrations, and the police respected those permits. He added that there were fifteen hotels in the city and the police could not possibly tolerate, men congregating outside them and singing after closing time. The Magistrate remarked that there was no comparison between a welcoming home demonstration or a religious service and a body of men who had been requested to go home after leaving a bar. He re-emphasised the opinion that, for men to come out of a bar and conduct a “beery concert” in the street constituted disorderly conduct.

After lengthy argument along these lines, James Ross, who was the last witness heard when the adjournment was taken, was cross-examined by Senior-Sergeant Lopdell. He deposed that he had a clear recollection of what occurred on the evening in question. He did not hear any indecent words used and no one, to his knowledge,

committed an indecent act. However, everyone was not under his personal observation. Constable Sheehan approached the mob and remarked: “Now, you boys, get away home.” That would be after one or two songs had been sung. Hammond was orrested at the third item, and they had one or two songs after that. The Senior-Sergeant pointed out that Hammond said the concert ceased when they lost their chairman.

Witness said that Hammond might have been correct. He denied that he was following Constable Sheehan around. No one invited him to get into the car, and Constable Wainhousc did n<»t ask witness what he was doing when he was taking a seat. The Senior-Sergeant: Did you “do your block” that night?—No, I did not. I “did my block” hi going to the station. You had four drinks?—Yes. Did you ever hear a man admit he hud more? —Yes. You don’t attend the court often?— No. Mr Slipper: He has not acquired the art.

The Senior-Sergeant: They generally don’t remember after the fourth.

Re-examined by Mr Slipper, witness said he heard “Every Ship Will Find a Harbour” sung, but no indecent sentence was added to it. To the .Magistrate: He asked for the char-a-banc to take the crowd to town after the" songs had been sung and after his mates had been put in the police car. Walter Gibson, licensee of the Castlecliff Hotel, said that the accused might have had up to six drinks of shandies. They might have had less. Ross, Hammond and Siddells appeared to be sober, but he did not see Stewart. Although witness and his,wife were working in. the front of his hotel from 6.20, he was not aware, of any disorderly conduct. The first intimation ho received of the trouble was someone knocking at the window. Had the singing been boisterous he would certainly have heard it. Aileen Drummond. housemaid-wait-ress, gave corroborative evidence. Edward McCarten said no one in the party was drunk. He sang the “Wearing of the Green.” Mr Slipper: “A dangerous experiment.” (Laughter.) Continuing witness said he heard the man singing “Every Ship Will Find a Harbour,” but an objectionable sentence was not used. The atmosphere was one of goodwill throughout. He had been present at sing-songs on the Home boats and on the wharf, and there had been no liquor to liven up the company on those occasions. There were no men under the influence of liquor who joined in the singing. Witness did not think Constable Sheehan was civil with Hammond. The latfer remarked to the constable: “Knock-off your shaking and bullying, I will go quietly.” Ralph Siddells, deposed that there were no objectionable words in the songs, and the company was not sing-

ing loudly. There was no “slinging off” at the constable, and Stewart and he did not interfere in any way. Cross-examined, witness stated that he arrived at the hotel before the other accused and had four or five drinks. He was not drunk, and it would take about twelve or fourteen glasses to make him intoxicated. Witness only saw Constable Sheehan speak once, and (hat was when Hammond was arrested. There was no comment when the arrest was made. Witness denied that he was a little confused on the night in question. A good deal went on that he knew nothing about. Ernest Rohloff, a crane driver, said he had one dri Ak of shandy on I®e night in question. He was outside when the accused and several others came out of the bar. One man sang: “Shots and Shells wore Flying. ” The Magistrate: That is the seventh! Mr Slipper: That is part of one of the other songs. Witness .further explained that he heard several other songs sung, including “Every Ship Will Find a Harbour.” Ho did no) hear anything that he would object to his wife hearing. He did not see any disorderly behaviour. He did not agree that the singing was boisterous. The accused, he regarded, were not drunk, although some of those present showed signs of having a few drinks. He thought Hammond was arrested for not going home when he was told to do so. This concluded the case for the defence, and Mr Slipper argued that Hammond and Ross were not drunk, and even several of the police officers admitted they would not have arrested them for that reason.

The Magistrate: I find that Ross, Hammond and Stewart were under the influence of drink but not drunk. It has been proved as a fact that Siddells was drunk.

Mr Slipper said that the word “disorderly” was not defined, and a breach of peace, he maintained, was not to be taken as a breach of silence. The sound had nothing to do with the matter —there must be some element of fear, alarm, concern or reasonable apprehension. If there was not that, then the behaviour must not amount to disorderly conduct. There must bo an element of intent to prove a. breach of the peace, and if “disorderly” was to be classed in the same category as “riotous,” and “insulting” behaviour then there was no evidence in the present case to call the behaviour disorderly. The Court was bound to consider the evidence of residents in the locality to find if the behaviour was disorderly or otherwise. There was no evidence of disorderly conduct except that of Constable Sheehan, whose statements were not corroborated. Counsel submitted that there was no disorderly conduct, and that the conduct did not amount to disorderly in the eyes of the law, and, therefore, lhe constable had no reason to effect arrests. The concensus of the evidence was that there was nothing to cause trouble, and, in conclusion. Mr Slipper contended that the accused did not obstruct the constable in the execution of his duty.

Senior-Sergeant Lopdell pointed out that Constable Sheehan did his best to get the crowd to disperse, and it was only after issuing repeated warnings that he took the steps he did to break up the concert. He maintained that the Court and not the locality must set the standard in such cases. The Magistrate remarked that he was quite satisfied on the evidence that Siddells was drunk. He was so .far under the influence of liquor that when the others were bailed out Sergeant Sivyer was not prepared to let him go. He was also quite satisfied that Hammond and Ross wore, markedly under the influence of liquor. His Worship added that he had not a shadow of doubt that the conduct was disorderly. After referring to the various classes of breaches of good order, Mr Barton observed that it was true that there must be an clement of intention proved, but the only way of judging intention was by accused persons’ actions and admissions. He had no doubt there was a breach of the good order the police were required to observe in the streets. Without any hesitation Ross and Hammond would be convicted under the ByLaws Offences Act ‘.‘that they did behave in a disorderly manner.”

In referring to the case of Siddells and Stewart, the Magistrate observed that on this occasion it was one man dealing with fourteen men who were mostly under the influence of liquor in varying stages. The constable acted with self-restraint. The things that were attributed to him were incredible, and there was hardly a material point in the defence that was not to be discredited in the hazy evidence. He was prepared to accept substantially the evidence of Constable Sheehan, and reject that of the defence as being unreliable.

In reply to Mr Slipper, the Magistrate observed that the men were obstinate, and the constable must be complimented on the manner in which he carried out his duty. Ho would have failed in his duty had he not attempted to break up the sing-song. “The defence has tried to set up a standard of good order in our streets, and they are not justified in doing that,” he added in convicting both Stewart and Siddells for “disturbing and hindering the police. ” Mr Slipper said that surely they were entitled to defend. Each of the accused was convicted and fined £3, and ordered to pay police expenses 3s 3d.