DISTURBING A PUBLIC MEETING.

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2365, 22 January 1915, Page 8

DISTURBING A PUBLIC MEETING.

TWO MA6TERTON YOUNG MEN .PINED. Two young men named George Foreman and Jack Adams were charged in the Magistrate's ' Court at Masterton yesterday, before Mr. L. G. Reid, S.M., with having disturbed a publio meeting addressed by .the Hon. A. L. Herdman, in Masterton, on December 8. The < former accused was represented by Mr. A. .K. Logan, and Sergeant Miller conducted the prosecution. G. H. Perry, merchant, deposed that, he was present at. Mr. Herdman'ts meeting. There was a good deal of disturbance, and "counting out." Witness, who was in the crowd, appealed to the people to give the man a hearing. Mr. Herdman could not be heard. The ohairman had previously appealed to the audience to give Mr. Herdman a fair hearing. The chairman made constant appeals. Witness-saw Constable Dunphy put Foreman out. Witness could'6wear that Foreman was shouting. Cross-examined by Mr. Logan, witness' stated that he was 'only about two feet from the accused Foreman when the latter was Temoved. There was considerable noise coming from the locality in which the accused was sitting. Witness could not say whether Foreman was asking the other men to keep quiet. He did not take him to be doing bo. Constable. Dunphy deposed that he was present at the meeting addressed by the Hon. A. L. Herdman. The chairman, at tfie start of the meeting, made an appeal for a fair hearing. Fairly good order was kept for a period of about ten minutes. There was a bunch of five or bix nien a. few feet from where witness was standing. They first started 'hooting, and then .they began "counting out." The two accused were ringleaders of the crowd. Witness and Constable Ferguson went to tho spot. Witness, with some difficulty, put Adams out, and Constable Ferguson put Foreman out. They did not return, and the meeting proceeded with-out-further disturbance. The Hon. Mr. Herdman had Btated he was determined that the meeting should go on without disturbance. Under cross-examination, witness stated that the accused had several o f their chums with them. Witness would swear that the accused were hooting and "counting out." Constable Fergusson! corroborated the evidence of the last witness. He said he had no doubt as to the identity of the accused, who were shouting so loudly that they could bo heard all over the hall. Witnesß attempted to arrest tho two men, but he had difficulty, and Constable Dunphy came to his assistance. Witness was quite positive that the accused were ringleaders of the disturbance. Under cross-examination, witness stated that no person had told him that he had got the wrong man. He was quite certain that he had the right man. Witness did not seo a Mr. Lewis during the meeting, nor was he spoken to by him. This was tho case for the prosecution.

For the defence, George S. Foreman deposed that he was a taxi-driver. Ho swore that lie did not say a word at th# meeting. He wont into tho meeting with Adams, and as the hall was crowdod, .lie had to take his seat beside some men from the freezing works. Witness admitted taking part in the demonstration when Mr. Herdman went on to the' platform. Ho further admitted having laughed when tho "coimt-ing-out" took place. _ Under cross-examination, witness stated that a man had come to him since the meeting and said he was sorry aa ho was'the culprit. He had hopped down when the constablo arrived on the scene. The man was to be a witness in this case. John B. Adams, blacksmith, stated that be went into the hall with Foreman. There was a general demonstration when Mr. Herdman arrived 011 the platform. Witness denied liavma subae.avwntlj cieated a dMurb^a.

put out after being a few minutes at the meeting. Cross-examined, witness stated that ho did not o'pen. his mouth throughout the mooting. He did not hear any person say that tho police had made a mistake. May M'Barron deposed that she was in the Drill liell when the Hon. A .L. lierdman addressed the meeting. Sho was sitting in front of tho two accused, and did not hear them speak or orente a disturbance. Lewis H. Lewis, insurance agent, stated that he was at Mr. Herdman's meeting. He was oitting in close proximity to the two accused, and did not hear either of them hooting or "couni-ing-out." Foreman was certainly not hooting, as witness was speaking to hint at the time. Witness told the constable that he had the wrong man, but did not' suppose the constable keard him. . , Cross-examined, witness stated that ho was speaking to Foreman about insurance when tue constable intervened. He would not swear that Foreman wan not shouting at one period of the meeting. Sidney E. Bryden stated that he was in the hall, and was two seats in front of Foreman. He saw the police put Foreman out. Witness was looking at Foreman's face when the counting-out Btarted, and would swear that lie did not take part in it. Foreman was merely smiling. William John Drake also gave evidence. He 6tated that-he was an employee at the freezing workß. He was sitting-heside the two accusal when the police put them out. He did not hear the accused making a disturbance, although a row took place. Witness admitted that he was a schoolmate of both accused. Joseph Clark, an employee of the Telegraph Department, deposed-that he was at Mr. Herdman's meeting, and saw the aocused put out. He' was in their company, but was not a friend of theirs. He heard them making a ncise early in the meeting, and had remonstrated with' them. ' . Frank. Treader and Sydney E. Bryden also gave evidence. His Worship stated that he preferred to believe the positive evidence of the police to the evidence given for the defence. He made allowance for its being -a political meeting, and a time of excitement. At the same time, people must remember that it was an offence to disturb a meeting. Each of'the accused would be fined 20s. and costs.