THE BOXING ENTERTAINMENT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2524, 10 June 1909, Page 6

THE BOXING ENTERTAINMENT.

DEFENDANTS BEFORE THE COURT.

judgment reserved

Thcv sequel to the raid by the police , upon an 'alleged illegally conducted boxing entertainment that was being conducted in a room in Peel street on the evening of Tuesday, May 25th, took place yesterday when seventy men of various • ages and occupations appeared before Mr W. A. Barton, S.M., at tho Magistrate’s Court to answer various charges. Mr J. R. Kirk appeared for the whole, of the accused, and. the body of the Court was crowded. Thevarious informations laid by tho police were: William Crawford, James Joseph Healy and George Lapidge charged with holding a boxing contest without a permit. William Crawford, with promoting a boxing contest without i* permit; William Crawford, J. J. Healy John Dixie and Robert Marks with engaging in a boxing contest without a permit, and G. Lapidge, A. Briscoe, L. Robinson, E. Bringham, A. Ha!pin' • J. McConville, A. Brown, P. Muldoon, G. Rusher, J. Sutton, H. Meade, E. Hargreaves, H. Jackson, H. Poole, J. Ferris, A. Hunter, G. Boulton, G. Wade, J. Lawrence, P. Mullane, D. O’Donnell, C. Bennett, S. Smith, H. Cameron, A. McConnell, F. Neill, W. Hayes, F. Harding, J. (Houston-, A. Steniier, F. Stenner, W. Stenner, B. Tanner, A. Molloy, H. Ritchie, R. Morse, A. Perry, G. Dick, G. McLaughlin, W. Anderson, A. Morton, J. Murphy, R. Gault, R, Wilkinson, J. Duggan. E. Bedford, S. Fly lands, H. Williams, W. Third, .J. Gilmouir, H. O’Neill, H. Adams, P. Maher, A. Flen- , denson, N. Carter, F. Seymour, W. Little, R. Quick, N. Hewitt with being present at a boxing contest that was proceeding without a permit having been obtained. ' The case against William C Haw ford for promoting a boxing contest without a permit on- May 25th, was called first. Mr Kirk appeared for the accused who pleaded not guilty and tasked that the cases against J. J. Healy and G. Lapklge should be heard at the same time. “ All pleaded not guilty. .John Dixie and J. J. Healy were then charged -with engaging in a boxing contest without .a permit. : Detective Rawls said that on May 95th, lat about S p.m., he went upstairs in a building off Peel street known, as the old printing office of tho “Tunes." He saw two men engaged in a boxing bout. The men were Lindsay Robinson and Seymour. Afterwards a man narn- - 'ed Marks and another man engaged in a second bout. They were followed in turn by Dixie and Crawford in a bout. At about 8.30 p.m. a towel was placed in the centre of the room. Defendant Healy acted as referee and Lapidge as time-keeper. He believed the towel was placed on the floor * v Helaly and a sum of 13s 9d was thrown on to the towel. (He produced tire money). The money avas thrown by onlookers. Witness then said to Crawford, “That constitutes a breach.” Crawford replied that he did not think so. Witness repeated that it was a breach, and Crawford said lie had done the same thing at 'Palmerston North when the police were in attendance, and he was not interfered with. Witness directed him to the clause in the Act dealing with tho offence, but Crawford stepped forward to the towel and declined to take notice of the Clause. After bowing to- the audience and saying “thank you, gentlemen,”" be- proceeded to pick up the .money. Witness then took the money and counted it out to Crawford. When witness told Crawford he intended to take the money, he demurred and said "l don’t think you have any right.” It was then about ia quarter bo- 9 o’clock. Witness left the building and about five minutes afterwards -returned with Sergeant Hutton and Constable Scott. On entering tho room he saw Healy and Crawford boxing. . At Sergeant Hutton’s request they stopped, land he with witness took the names of all present. To Mr Kirk : There was nothing objectionable in the way the boxing was conducted. Fie spoko to Crawford and asked him what the strength of the school was and if they were going to have another “two-up" school, and warned him that ho would probably have a short life if it did eventuate. Crawford said nothing of the. kind would take place and promised to let 'witness have a key by which, he could enter at any time. Witness saw the advertisement of the entertainment m r.iie “Times” but did not warn Crawford that he must not take up a collection. !He did not anticipate a twoup school on that night, but wanted to prevent such a school in the future. Fie had no suspicion that a collection would be taken up. There was no breach of the law until the collection - mas taken up. He would not posi- ? lively swear that Healy put the-towel down. Ho knew defendant Lapidge, who was acting as time-keeper, ' but - could mot swear he was present when 'the collection was taken up, or that Lapidge was away at the. time. Fie \ knew of no collusion between Lapidge ■and Crawford or Flealy and Crawford to arrange the contest. Healy told witness^that he did not know Cranford and merely went to the room in the. interests of boxing. Crawford was the proprietor. Witness only saw Dixie boxing and bo believed that Crawford and Marks originated tnventertainment. Fie understood the room was let to Crawford by a man named Lawrence. Ffe did not warn the defendants until after tho collection was taken up. To the Bench: He did not see any one leave the room after the collection was taken up. Fie saw nothing brutal or objectionable in the boxing. To Sergeant Flutton : Me saw to at the advertisement said tho entertainment would be free. He took the laying down, of the towel as an invitation to throw money. , , ’ . To the Bench: Crawford said lie Hat! 'done the same thing at Palmerston Dwyer said ho was present at the entertainment with the last witness, and' saw the boxing bouts as described bv Detective Rawle. Healy was actin" as referee and Lapidge as timekeeper. The boxers were dressed m boxing costume, andvirore boxing gloves, and there was a ring left for room foi the competitors. There were between • 50 and GO onlookers'. The time of each round was called and the reteree separated the contestants during elmC To Mr Kirk: He left before the collection was taken up. Ho did not know if Lapidge also left. He <?aw • Lapidge outside, the room at about a i quarter to 9 o’clock. He saw rothmg . objectionable in. the contest. He eft the boxing entertainment at about u * nast 8 o’clock. , •, , * .Joshua Lawrence, produce merchant • said he was the tenant of the old “Times” Office and let the bund:nig re VJ Crawford as a weekly tenant at ,lU> per week. Crawford said he was going j to teach, boxing.

David M. Gorman, reporter, said he was present- at tho “Times" office when W. -Crawford asked that the advertisement (produced) announcing the en.tertainment bo inserted in the “Times.” Sergeant Flutton said that- on May 25th, just before 9 p.m., ho wmnt with Detective Rawle and Constable Scott to where tho boxing entertainment was being held. Fie saw the room full to the doors. Oin entering he saw ? a square known as a ring, in which Healy and Crawford were boxing. Both uvore boxing costume. Spectators were standing around the ring. Witness entered the ring and stopped tho boxing, as he had been told the- entertainment was illegal," and the men at once ceased. Witness took the names and addresses of the majority of persons present. A few days afterwards Crawford spoke to witness and asked him what would be the result and said that he did not know a /permit was necessary. Witness replied that the police only wanted to see- the boxing conducted on a proper footing, and that in taking up a. collection he had rendered himself liable. For the defence Mr Kirk said that a large number of informations had been laid and there was a great deal of public feeling on the matter. As far as tho contest was concerned the entertainment was clean, there was no brutality, and no suggestion of a twoup school. Crawford’s intention was to open a boxing school. The only thing that savored of unlawfulness was the taking up of a collection. Crawford was tho sole promoter- of the entertainment, and if any blame was attachable to> anyone it was to Crawford alone. Healy and Lapidgo took no part in promoting the. contest, and Lapidge left before the collection was taken up. Lapidge merely held tho watch before ho left. Healy engaged in a boxing bout, but took no part in the promotion. The same applied to Dixie. The public were invited free of charge by advertisement. Even if tho law was broken it was for the Court to consider if the defendants were parties to the breach of the law. Crawford had absolutely; no intention oi charging for admission. He had told the detective that lie had seen similar contests in Palmerston North when the police were present. Everything was going on well when some one put a. towel down and money was thrown. Crawford wanted to, give a free entertainment and was not a party to th? laying down of the towel. He, Mr Kirk, would produce Flyland, who would swear ho put down the towel of his own accord so tlqat the audience might show their gratitude to Crawford. There was no guilty intention and he hoped there would be an acquittal. It was the duty of the police to prove a guilty mind. He quoted authorities to show such was the case, and also quoted counsel’s remarks on artalagous eases to the effect that there must undoubtedly be guilty knowledge in order to constitute an offence. The whole of the cases hinged upon the point that if there were innocent'intentions the charges must be dismissed. Boxing was a noble snort, and one of its patrons in New 1 "Zealand was the Prime Minister. The-Bench: It is that Crawford agreed to th;- towel being placed on the floor. Mr Kirk : That happened after the offence had been committed. The Bench: It seems he agreed to the. collection being taken up. Ho bowed to and thanked the givers. The proper thing to have- done would have been for him to have said: “1 cannot take tho money, you must take it back.” Mr Kirk: The question is: In keeping the money had Crawford a guilty mind ? The defendants will swear positively that there was no collusion to take up a collection. Unless the police prove a guilty mind there is no case. The Bench: It is not for the police to prove a guilty mind. It is for you to show an innocent mind. The police cannot tell a man’s mind. Mr Kirk: If there is any doubt the accused arc entitled to it. I think one or two informations would have been sufficient to test the case. The 'Bench: Then the police would -have been accused of partiality. Mr Kirk: But these .men have been . raided like a lot of Chinamen in a gambling den. Mr Kirk called defendant Lapidge, 'who said that on May 25th lie saw the advertisement of a free boxing contest. In the evening, having a little time to spare, he,went to the entertainment. After a while ho was asked by Healy to take a watch and keep the time. Fu> explained to those nresent that Crawford was prepared to take pupils and there would bo one free night a week. Boxing then commenced and witness kept the time. After the third round witness handed the watch to and left the room. Outside ho met Constable Dwyer, the time was before a quarter to 9 o’clock. He saw no money thrown into the ring while he was present. He did not know Crawford before tlie night of the entertainment Fie did not know until lie read the “Times” next day that the. police had raided the place and ho thought how fortunate he was to get away. There was some interruption in tho bo civ of the Court at this stage. To Sergeant Hutton : Ho had never acted as time-keeper before. Healy asked him to take the time and to explain the objects of the entertainment. Crawford told him to tell those present he would take pupils, an cl that there would be one night a week irep. After he left the room he went home. The case against Lapidge was then dismissed. ~ , William Crawford, carpenter, said ho had been in Gisborne for about two months and decided to start a boxing school. He intended to give one free night a week as an advertisement. Ho enwawe'd rooms" from the witness Lawrence'. Fie was tho so'c promoter and would alone benefit. He started and obtained a few pupils. He put the advertisement in tbo “Times” announcing the first free night, lie c.id not intend there should be a collection made The towel was placed on the floor without his knowledge or eonsent and some coins wore thrown. Detective Rawle'said the collection was illegal and witness said he did not know wlvom the money was for, or whom it belonged to. Detective Rawle again said tho collection was illegal, and witness said “Thank you” to those prosent, but did not touch tho money. no to’d Detective. Rawle that he had seen similar collections made in Palmerston North when the police were present. Flo never suggested that the towel should be put down. Flo desired the ■evening to be* entirely free. Hyland put fhe'towel down and he was tolling the truth. Ho did promote the boxing contest and lie alone held the entertainment. Healy or Lapidge would not gain anything. To Sergeant Hutton Fie did not. ask the people to take back the money because he did not.know what to do. He did not pick up the money. He questioned Detective Ilawle’s -right to take the money away. He saw money taken a ,t Palmerston North when a man named Rollo was boxing at a private gymnasium. Witness took part in tho contest,. .. ..

His Worship * • Possibly a permit was obtained. To Sergeant Hutton: Tho contest was under the rules >of the Amatour Boxing Association. Ho was then an amateur boxer and boxed under amateur rules. Fie knew that a charge could not be made at the door of a boxing contest without obtaining a permit. -He. had not taught boxing in Sydney, but had done so in Palmerston North. He had never been warned regarding the company ho kept. Ho put the word “free” in the advertisement so as to get a good crowd and because ho intended the entertainment should "he free. He knew it was necessary to get a permit for a boxing exhibition, but did not apply for a permit. He did not intend'that there should bo a breach of the law. Sydney Hyland, carpenter, said lie was present at the entertainment, and placed tho towel on the floor. Crawford did not suggest the towel should be put down and there -was no pre-ar-rangement. He had seen the .same thing done at other boxing contests. He saw tho advertisement in the “Times” that tho entertainment was tree but as he had had a good entertainment he thought that at least ho and the public should show their gratitude He did not know it was illegal. He saw the detective in the 'room. Crawford was quite innocent of what witness did. ' , , , To Sergeant (Hutton : He had been in Gisborne about 12 months and came from Blenheim. Crawford asked him if lie. put tho towel on the floor and he said yes. He did not think it out of place*to take up a, collection. He had seen the same thing done in other places. He had only been in trouble for drunkenness. Ho was not a friend of Crawford, and only met him on tho night of the entertainment. That closed tho evidence for Crawford’s defence, and Worship said he wou'd read the cases quoted by Mr Kirk before giving his decision. James Healy, another defendant, also gave evidence. Flo was neither a ■promoter nor a holder of the show, but he took part in it. He was not to receive any benefit for liis participation, and had notinfig to do- with taking up the collection.. He did not understand anything about a collection. To Sergt. Hutton : He arranged, two days’ prior to the exhibition, to assist Crawford. John Dixie, laborer, also admitted having taken part in the exhibition, but was not interested in the entertainment in anv way. He had no knowledge of any “shower” or collection, or Tf it was intended that such should be made. ~ .... This concluded the evidence on this head and His Worship intimated lus desire to look into tho authorities quoted by counsel, and reserved Ins judgment. „ , . , , The next caso called was against A. Briscoe, who was charged with having been present at a boxing contest on May 25th, for which a permit had not been obtained. Mr J. R- Kirlc again appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Archie Briscoe said that he was present, but as ho was behind-a screen ho did not see any money thrown into a lino". He saw the. towel afterwards. The remainder" of the defendants were then called. Mr J- R- Kirk ed them, and a plea of “not guilty" 7 was entered in each case. Sergeant Hutton saul ho understood that tho defence in each ease would bo similar, that was that each defendant went to the place innocently, and aid not know that a'collection was to be His Worslrp : Some of tho defendants might admit th a 1 they know there would bo a broach of the law*. Sergeant Hutton said lie was prepared to admit the defendants were invited to a free entertainment and did not know there was to be a collection. ~ -, .... , Mr Kirk said he would admit tnat the police were quite right in not making fish of one and flesh of the other. Flis 'Worship: Entirely so. The police acted within their rights m taking all the names. Mr Kirk then entered a plea of not guilty” on behalf of all the defendants charged with witnessing the entertainment. , ~ , Mr Kirk said the advertisement showed an innocent -mind on behalf of each defendant. Each were under the impression that the contest would be free and they weie there by invitation. His Worship said he-would reserve his decision. Robert Marks was then charged with taking part in a boxing contest for which a permit had not ibeen obtained. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and said that while he was boxing at the place he was not a • promoter and was not aware that a collection was to lie taken up, neither was lie to reoeive any benefit. A& far >as no know the entertainment was to be free. To ’Sergeant (Hutton: Flo had known Crawford for six or seven years. He knew him in Wanganui. They both boxed under amateur rules. Judgment was reserved, and Fins Worship said he would intimate, to Mr Kirk when judgment would be given.