OBSGENE LANGUAGE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2314, 6 October 1908, Page 2

OBSGENE LANGUAGE.

A PLEA OF PROVOCATION. A BUSHMAN FINED. At the Magistrate’s Court, yesterday, before Mr. \V. A. Barton, S.M.. a young man named Frank McJNedl on bail, appeared to answer a charge of having used obscene language in a public place, on the night of Tuursday, October Ist. Sergt. Hutton conducted the prosecution, and accused was defended by Mr. T. Alston Coleman. Richard Stephen Chilton, licensee of tiie British Empire 'Hotel, said that on the night of October Ist, ho was standing at Ids door about 5 minutes to ten. Accused came along and accosted him, saying “Como round to the back and I’ll fight you.” Witness declined to go and turned to walk away and accused made use of tne most filthy language. One of witness employees named Davis was present and ho also heard the language used. Witness said to him “You hoard what that man called me?” and accused turned round and used niorc filtliy language, this time to Davis. Witness subsequently informed Constable Scott of what had occurod. To Mr. Coleman: He came to the front door and stood on the step. A young man was with accused and must have heard what ho said. Accused did not offer to shake hands and let bygones he bygones, and offering to say nothing further about witness having “lambed him down. ’ He did not say to the accused “Got to b—out of my door, or I’ll get you pinched.” Accused bad been, a boarder at witness’ hotel, but be (witness) dul not know anytliing about him having lost £4O. Accused ceased to lie a boarder on Sept 18 and witness had never threatened to Jay a trap for him. He did not meet the accused in front of the hotel previously, and did not say “I see yon put a letter into Black, I’ll put you somewhere where you will do no more mischief” (meaning “Black” the temperance lecturer of that name). To the Bench: Accused had never complained of having been “lambeddown” or having lost bis money. Ite-examined by Sergt. liutton: Accused was told to leave the liotql on September 18, but was given no reason. Both accused and Ins brother were in a room, and witness went m and said “Clear out of this.” Accused asked the reason why, but witness replied that that was bis affair. He liad absolutely no doubt that the words complained of were made use of by the accused in a public thoroughfare. Herbert Davis, cook at the British Empire Hotel, stated that he was standing at the hotel door with the jrovioiM witness on tlie night of October Ist. Accused came along and -:-;id ‘ s ome round the back and Fll fight you.” Witness, further corroborated the evidence of Mr. Chilton as to liis subsequent movements, and as to the language used. (Witness’ evidence of the exact language uso was slightly different to that of the previous witness). To Mr. Coleman: He was quite positive as to the language used. He did not- see the accused hold out his hand to shake hands with Mr. Chilton. To the Bench: Accused had had some drink but was not drunk. Andrew Brodio, barman at the Albion Hotel, also gave evidence of being present, in company with Archie Thompson, when the language was used. He was standing about twenty yards away and distinctly heard the language complained of. (This, witness also gave the exact words used in the bad language, and Ills definition included those of tlie two previous witnesses.) To Mr. Coleman: He did not hear ■anyone say “Get away to b—” nor did lie bear any reference to anyone getting “pinched”. Ho could not distinguish who was using the bad language. Archibald Thompson, carpenter, gave corroborative evidence, and liis definition of the language used was identical with the words mentioned by the witness Brodio. To Mr. Coleman: He had been over at Haiti that night, but had just at the ime come out of the hotel. He heard no mention of fighting. To the Bench: He could not sa.Y if the accused was in the vicinity when hcicame out of the liotol. Constable Scott gave evidence of the arrest of accused, in consequence of a complaint made by Mr. Chilton.He arrested the accused in Ormond Hoad at 10.45 p.in., and told him Gie was doing so on a charge of obscene language and threatening behavior. Accused replied, “Is that so?” .and on the way to the Polico Station accused further said, “I am very glad that this lias happened, as I want to get one on to Chilton, but I hope I won’t get gaol for the bad language.” To Mr. Coleman: Accused made no mention at the time of Chilton having “lambed him down,” but said lie had written a letter to Mr. A. J. Black, stating that Chilton had “lambed him down.”

To the Bench: Accused was quite sober.

This closed the evidence for the prosecution.

In outlining the (oise-for the defence Mr. Coleman admitted that the accused had used some heated expression, but he (counsel) claimed that, according to his instructions, accused had a very good cause to have a substantial grievance against Chilton. Counsel proceeded to state that lie had been instructed that the accused came down from the bush with a cheque for £3O odd, and when Chilton had taken the last 25s out of the cheque, lie turned him out of doors. “Even Chilton's employees,” continued counsel, “advised accused not- to submit- to such treatment from Chilton, and to take the matter up and obtain his remedy.” Counsel then proceeded to review the apparent discrepancies in the evidence for the prosecution, and called:

Frank McNeill, the accused, who slid that he had an interview with Chilton about 10 days ago. Chilton stopped him, and said, “I see you liavo put a letter into Black about me,” and witness replied, “Yes. Don’t you think I had good cause after tile way you treated me?” Chilton then said, “'Well, I’ll see that you aro put in a place whore you will do me no more harm.” "Witness replied that ho was prepared to go on with it, and walked away. When he wont to the hotel to stay he had £4O, and he spent it all at the hotel with the exception of about £2. 'When he had the money he spent it freely, and thought Chilton was a fine fellow, one of tlio best he had ever met-; but it was very different the morning he told him to go, after his money was done. "Witness was in bed dll one morning, and Chilton came to . his room and Slid, “Pack up your b swag and>get out of this. You are no b good to mo now.” At this time he had no money, and had difficulty in getting other accommodation.

On October Ist ho saw Chilton .at the door of the hotel about 10 p.ni. He went to Chilton to offer to drop the quarrel and shake hands over it, but Chilton said, “You get to h— out of my door, or I will have you pinched.” Chilton then walked away and as lie was going witness said to him, “Well you are a rotten b —— Witness then went away home and wont to bed, being arrested about an hour afterwards by Constable Scott. He did not- say to Constable Scott in the street that ho hoped ho would not get gaol for had language. To -Sergeant Hutton : He had been all his life in New Zealand, except for a six weeks’ trip.to Sydney. He had been, in difficulties in Hastings, where he had been charged with attempted rape. He had no trouble at Rakauroa or in Gisborne on account of not paying his just' debts, and lie bad not reported to the police that Chilton had dealt unfairly with him. No mention was made of any fighting with Chilton. David Ravell, painter, gave evidence of having been with the accused on October. Ist, near the British Empire Hotel. Chilton -and the witness Davis were at the door, and accused walked up to Chilton and said : “Good night, Dick, shake hands.” Chilton replied: “You get to b ■away from my door or I’ll get you pinched.” McNeill then replied: “you are a li——and Chilton said “I’ll fix you,” and the conversation ended.

To Sergt. Hutton: Ho was quite sure the words ho had stated were the actual words used. No mention was made of fighting. To tho Bench: Accused was drunk, hut ho (witness) was quite sober. This concluded tlie_evidence for tho defence. In delivering judgment His Worship slid that ho was not there to try tho question of whether Chilton had lambed tho man down, or not. ff it was so accused bad liis legal remedy. What lie was there for was to ascertain if tbo accused had made uso of obscene language, and he considered that tlie charge bad been proved against him. Even putting aside tho ovidcnco of Chilton, he could not see anv reason to disbelieve tho three other witnesses for tlie prosecution, who swore most positive.y that the words complained of had been used. He pointed out that until recently ho would have boon compelled to send the accused to prison. Tbo language used, was very disgusting and most objectionable, and must be put a stop to. Dim could hardly walk down the street without hearing had language of some kind or other. He had heard it and. supposed that others had done so to. Accused would he convicted and lined £5 with £1 3s costs,, in default 14 days’ imprisonment with hard labor. Addressing the accused His .worship said, “Now if it is true that you spent all this money in the hotel in three weeks, take my advice and next time you come to town with a cheque take 'more care of it and of yourOn the application of Mr Coleman for the accused fourteen days were allowed in' which to pay the fine.