An Objectionable Placard.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XXX, Issue XXVI, 27 June 1903, Page 1823

An Objectionable Placard.

MR. S. L. P. RIMMER ARRESTED. Anything approaching mob law is fortunately a thing of rare occurrence in Auckland, as the people generally appear tolerant and law-abiding. On the evening of June 17, however, and again on the morning of June 18th, a regrettable affair occurred in Wellesley street West. For some time past Mr S. L. P. Rimmer has had various leaflets pasted on the windows of his business premises, amongst others being one headed, “Errors of the Church of Rome.’ This has been posted for some time and caused no trouble, but about 1.30 o’clock on the morning of June 18th the window was found broken. Mr. Rimmer seems to have jumped to the conclusion that the breaking of the window was in some way connected with the abovementioned leaflet, and on June 18th he put over the broken pane a large poster bearing the words, “This is the work of the Church of Rome.” The result was to cause a crowd to congregate, and about 10.30 o’clock several young fellows near the window were hustling one another, with the result that another window was broken. Air Rimmer next came out and put up other posters that aroused the ire of persons in the crowd, and these posters were soon torn to shreds. A big crowd had by this time collected, and Sergeant Hendry arriving upon the scene, telephoned to the Court and obtained a warrant for the arrest of Mr Rimmer, who was accordingly taken into custody, ami removed in the midst of hostile demonstrations on the part of some of the crowd. Sufficient remained to interest passersby, and a policeman had to be placed on duty to deal with the crowd. At 2.30 o’clock Seth L. P. Rimmer was charged, under Section 8, Sub-section 3, of the J.P. Act, with that he did exhibit offensive writing, to wit, written placards having thereon the words: “The Church of Rome is a huge brothel” and other writings of similar import, and the complainant, knowing that such exhibit ionas aforesaid is continuing and fears that it

will tend to provoke a breach of th* peace, wherefore he prays that the said Seth L. P. Rimmer be ordered to find securities to keep the peace in accordance with the statute in such case made and provided. Clause 3 reads as ollows: “Done any offensive aet to or in the presence of the party complaining, for the purpose of annoyance and provocation, or publicly and to the common annoyance of His Majesty’s subjects, and the Justice is of opinion that such conduct is likely to be repeated, and may tend '.o provoke a breach of the peace.' Mr Stewart appeared for accused. Sub-Inspector Black referred to the facts of the ease, and asked for a remand until the following day, which was granted. Mr Stewart asked that bail be allowed. Sul: Inspector Black asked that if bail be allowed accused be deterred from showing matter calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. Mr Stewart said so far as the matter was sub judice Mr Rimmer would undertake not to do so. Inspector Black said other placards were torn out of the window by the ciowd and destroyed. Mr Rimmer: “I wish to say this—that the words in the indictment arc not correct.” His Worship said step- were taken in the interest of the deu 1 <l:mt himself, on the ground that he might be injured ty the crowd. He would allow bail to defendant. The sub-inspector said if defendant went back and repeated the offence there would be a disturbance. The police had asked defendant to take the placards out of the window, and he refused to do so. His Worship granted bail in t wo sureties of £SO. Bail was forthcoming. Mr Seth Luther Pierpoint Rimmer appeared on bail at the Police Court on June 19 before Mr H. W. Brabant, S.M., to answer a charge laid against him by Sergeant C. W. Hendry of having exhibited offensive writing calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. Accused pleaded not guilty. Sergt. Hendry stated that he went to Mr Rimmer’s shop, as he understood the defendant had telephoned to the police

fjtation for someone. When witness got to the shop in Welleslcy-street he found a considerable crowd, probably 150 people, gathered outside. The crowd extended above and below the shop and into the roadway. Witness saw Mr Rimmer in the shop, and asked what was the trouble. He replied tha-t some people had torn down some placards which he had put on his shop window, and he wanted them taken into custody. .Witness went outside and tried to get the crowd to disperse. He saw a number of placards on the window, and produced four which were pasted inside. There were several pasted on the outside. Witness found he could not get them off so he had them scraped off as they were of an offensive character. The crowd were apparently in a very angry mood, shouting out ‘’Bring him out!’’ “Tear him out!” and similar expressions referring to the defendant. They made one or two rushes towards the shop door. Witness pointed out to Mr Rimmer that the placards were worded in a most offensive manner, and unless he took them down his property would undoubtedly be destroyed or damaged, and that he would most likely be injured himself. Defendant, however, absolutely refused to remove the placards although witness did all he could to persuade him. He asserted that if the people destroyed the announcements he would put up fresh ones. Witness added that he tried to remonstrate with the crowd but finding that he could do nothing single-handed he got a constable to keep the crowd in order, and secured a warrant from His Worship for Mr Rimmer’s arrest. If the placards had not been removed there would have been a serious disturbance. To Mr Reed: Witness told defendant" it would be impossible for the police to give him proper protection while he exhibited such writings. Witness tried to move the crowd on. Some of the crowd were undoubtedly of the larrikin element and some were respectably dressed. Was not the disturbing element purely a larrikin clement?—No; I think not. Sergeant Hendry said that in laying the information from memory he made a mistake in aceusing defendant of writing “Mother Ignatius was a prostitute.” Another name was used. Mr. Reed then read a quotation from the placards exhibited by defendant, and asked whether the attack was not on Anglican ministers principally. Sergeant Hendry replied that the attack, he thought, was on the Roman Catholics. Continuing, witness said that he believed the accusation of Bible-burning referred to the recent alleged Bible-burn-ing in Fiji. He said that the placards were highly offensive, and were such as were calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. Witness said that defendant stated that he himself and he alone was responsible for the placards. Sergeant Hendry then read the following from one of the placards: “Who degrades woman and makes her the slave of his vile passion? The priest of the Church of Rome by his immoral confession and sham absolution!” Witness also read the following copy of a placard he saw on the window: “Catholics say their church is infallible, yet their cardinals, Baronins and Henry, say in their church history that many of the Popes were guilty of adultery, murders, debauchery, that the bastard, John XT., the son of Pope Sergius, was consecrated Pope through the influence of his prostitute Mother Marosian; yet to-day hundreds of Anglican ministers arc praying for ‘Our Holy Father-in-God,

the Pope,’ and that be will hasten the day. when he will receive them back into his fold. Let the canting hypocrites go to Rome and worship its God.” The defendant in the witness box stated that he was a spice and coffee merchant carrying on business in Wel-lesley-strcet. He wished to deny that he had stated in the placards that the Church of Rome was a brothel. Mr Reed: What was it that caused you to start this attack on the Catholic Church? Witness: For years I have been in the habit of exhibiting in my window papers which I thought were beneficial to the public, either against the drink, or anything which I thought was detrimental. I have said nothing against any special Church. Sometimes I have spoken against some ministers who were saying the Bible was a forgery, and I exposed their names and what was said. I have no special animus against any denomination.” "Witness added that when the Bible-burning occurred in Fiji he determined to show the people what the Church of Rome was, by cuttings from the newspapers and their own books. For several months he had exhibited different things which he thought beneficial, not intending to raise the ire of the people. He had customers who were Roman Catholics, and when the election was on he published a number of statements respecting the liquor traffic. Dr Campbell was one of his customers, but he did not object, believing that witness had the same right to nis opinions as he had himet-lf. Cross-examined by Sub-inspe»etor Black, witness admitted that one of the placards read: “Who degrades woman and makes her the slave of his vile passions? The priest of Rome by his immoral confession and sham absolution.” ' Do you know that such placards would be highly offensive to members of the Roman Catholic Church?—When people do wrong the truth cuts them. Witness said the only effect he intended was that Roman Catholics should think and see if what he said was true or not. "Witness admitted refusing to take the placards down, thinking that he was fully within his rights. Sergt. Hendry said after asking witness to take the placards down that he should do nothing with the crowd. After the window was smashed he did not remove the placards. Mr Reed said that Mr Rimmer’s explanation was quite clear on this point. The fact was that when Mr Rimmer’s windows were broken he got his back »P- . His Worship: Of course, the breaking of the windows cannot be defended, and speaking as a magistrate I think the breakers of the windows should be here as well as Mr Rimmer. THE DECISION. His Worship in giving judgment ordering the defendant to find a surety of £SO to keep the peace for six months said that the whole • of the words mentioned in the information had not been proved. Several placards against the defendant. If they were provoked by the placards they should have taken the legal remedy, but at the same time he thought that the exhibition of such placards was calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, and the section applied. Therefore the defendant must be asked to enter into recognisances, lie did not suppose Mr Rimmer intended to do anything wrong. He seemed to him to be a religious enthusiast, but ho had gone a bit too far. lie (the magistrate) supposed it was correct

that if ft had been pointed out to Mr Rimmer that what he was doing would have ereated a disturbance he would not have done it. He said he refused to take the placards down because lie was not going to be biowbeaten by his windows being broken. He would take that into consideration, and the fact that the people who broke them had no right to do so. and he would do what was asked in the information, viz., ask defendant to enter into recognisances to keep the peace.