SENDING OFFENSIVE LETTERS

New Zealand Tablet, 24 June 1915, Page 31

SENDING OFFENSIVE LETTERS

A WOMAN FINED IN WELLINGTON. For some months past (says the Dominion of Saturday) the Catholic clergy and laity of the city have been in receipt of offensive anonymous letters. In each case the writer signed the letter 4 Gordon Andrew Martin, author of Catholicism and Crime.’ Detective Mason was successful in tracing the writer, and yesterday in the Magistrate’s Court, before Mr. D. G. A. Cooper, S.M., a middle-aged woman named Laetitia Jane Hood was charged on three informations with 4 posting a postal packet with words of a grossly offensive character thereon.’ The informant in the first case was Thomas Devoy, in the second case Alice W. GirlingButcher, and in the third Thomas O’Shea. Mr. P. J. O’Regan appeared for the informants, while defendant, who was not represented / by counsel, pleaded ‘ Not guilty.’ * • Counsel for the prosecution said the, charges had been laid under Section 83 of the Post and Telegraph Act, 1908, which made an offender liable to a fine of £2O.

Archdeacon Devoy, parish priest of St. Anne’s, Wellington South, was the first witness. He said that on May 22 last he received the letter- produced, which was signed /G. A. Martin, author of Catholicism and Crime.’ The letter "was handed to the Magistrate, who perused it. - Archbishop O’Shea, the next witness, said that on February 26 last he received a letter addressed Archbishop O’Shea, R.C., signed G. A. Martin, author, etc.

Alice Winifred Girling-Butcher said her father. was secretary-of the Catholic Federation She remembered receiving a letter addressed ‘.Mr. Popplewell, secretary of the Catholic Federation ’ ' ,The letter was - opened, and as neither ; witness nor , her father knew the handwriting, the letter was handed to the police. •

; A/ Minnie Dunn, shop assistant (Kirkcaldie and Stains, Ltd.), said she knew accused, who lived at the same boardinghouse with her. -- - Witness v left the place .: at the end of last year because of the insulting remarks

accused used •to [ make to Her regarding t her religion. After leaving the . house she received V a number of' letters ■ signed G. 'A. . Martin, from accused, which reiterated 'theinsulting remarks made ’- to witness " whilein the ■ house.lP& /// '//■ -/•/:

. Jessie > Aitcheson, a married woman, living in Kent' terrace, said; she knew the accused,' who boarded in her house during December last. Accused was then engaged in dressmaking, . and was writing a book erftitled Catholicism and Crime. **£* 1 . Y ’ *T*’ . i v ,r Detective Mason said > that while making' inquiries he r received from 'a Mr. Bailey, of Newtown, a letter, produced. .It was headed 232 Willis street, and signed Mrs. Hood. He compared the writing with the writing in the,letters now in.court, and immediately commenced a search for accused. He finally located accused at 70 Cambridge terrace. L He showed her the letter produced, and after reading it accused admitted she was the writer of it. Witness then showed her the offensive letters, subject of the present charge, and after reading the letter she said : ‘ wrote the letters. That is my signature; it is my pen name.’ ..Accused said, ‘I am not afraid. I only hoped when. I wrote the letters to aggravate them to take action.’, v ' gi. ‘

Detective Tricklebank, who assisted Detective Mason in his investigations, gave corroborative evidence. This concluded the evidence, and the Magistrate asked accused if she had anything to say. Accused quoted the' wording of the charge, and said that it said nothing about offensive words in a letter, but only * a postal packet with offensive words thereon.’ In view of this she had no charge to answer. The -Magistrate explained -that the letter was a postal packet, and the offensive writing was on it. Her objection must fail. . / - , . , . Accused persisted that she had been charged under the wrong section. •

His Worship: But I rule otherwise. You can appeal against my ruling if you like. Accused: Yes. I intend to appeal. Mr. O’Regan remarked that the letters accused had written would be the subject of much more serious proceedings. They intended to proceed against accused for criminal libel. ' • "

The Magistrate : ‘The letters are of a very offensive character indeed. Accused will be convicted/ A fine of £lO, with costs £1 12s, was imposed on the first charge, while on the two other charges accused was convicted and discharged. Security for appeal was fixed at £2O.