HOWARD ELLIOTT CASE

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 34, 3 November 1917, Page 8

HOWARD ELLIOTT CASE

COMPLAINANT LEAVES THE COM'

SCATHING COMMENT BY THE MAGISTRATE

SORRY TO HAVE TO ENTER A CONVICTION

"ELLIOTT DESERVED ALL HE GOT," By Telegraph—Press Association. Auckland, November 2. Tho charges against Charles Christopher Clements and Herbert Eugeno M'Enteo of assaulting tho Eov. Howard' Elliott on October 15 were heard by Mr. F. V. Frazer, S.M., in Hie Police Court (o-dar. The information was laid by Elliott, for whom Mr. H. H. Ostler appeared. Counsel said ifc was significant that tho assault was committed when Elliott was leaving his house to speak at a meeting of tho Protestant Political Association. He understood the defence was that Clements had been provoked by a statement attributed to Elliott, but he contended that this provocation was not a sound defence. He denied that Elliott published any statement reflecting on I the relatives of Clements, the matter being contained in a letter written by I and addressed to Elliott himself to test the censorship. The contents were first revealed by counsel at the Postal Inquiry, but were not actually published until read by the Hon. A. L. Herdman in Parliament. Referring to the assault, Mr. Ostler said that Clements employed two men to hold Elliott's arms while he (Clements) committed thj3 assault. The truth of the matter was that the assault was an attempt to prevent, the right of free speech, and if not put down such lawlessness might easily result in reprisals and civil war. Evidence was then given by the driver of a taxi-cab, who, while waiting to take Elliott to tho meeting, witnessed the assault, and by three neighbours, who were attracted to the scene by the scuffle. When the last of these witnesses entered the box Elliott left the court, and tho witness having given evidence, Mr. Ostler, 6aid that concluded the case. Mr. J. E. Heed, who appeared for the accused remarked: "Elliott has funked it and slunk out of court. It is cowardly to avoid going info the box, and is in accordance with his actions in attacking a dead woman."

The Magistrate said he understood Mr. Heed's- surprise. Mr. Reed was entitled to make any statement he thought fit in mitigation, 'and anything Mr. Seed said he would have to accept as true, and it would go out to the general public as true.

Mr. Ostler: Whatever Elliott said does not justify the assault.

Mr. Peed added that when a man woiiM deliberately leave the court to avoiu' answering questions on oath concerning any provocation he had given to the young man and his family it must bo clear to the Court and the public that he would not substantiate the grossly untrue statements he had made. Proceeding with the defence, Mr. Heed said that at the Postal Inquiry Elliott admitted having referred during a meeting in the Town Hall to the drowning* of a nun, a sister of Cicments's, and suggesting that certain facts regarding her health had been suppressed at the inquest. Elliott subsequently represented to the Ministers' Association that the statements were true.

Mr. Ostler said that personally he was willing to admit that the suggestions regarding the chastity of tho nun were untrue.

At this stage the charge against M'Entee was dismissed, the Magistrate ruling that there was no evidence against liim. Mr. Prazer ruled that in the absence of Elliott lie must presume that he made the statements attributed to him.

in giving judgment, Mr. Frazer said: "Elliott has made a statement about Ciements's dead sister which I am satisfied is absolutely untrue. It looks as if Mr. Elliott, in his zeal to combat the activities of the Homan Catholic Church, has cast aside all considerations of prudence and ordinary decency. A man who makes use of such statements for political or any other ends is committing an act of which I hope no decent man, let alone a minister of religion, would be guilty* I can only say that, speaking as a, man, I think Elliott in making that statement in public behaved like a) low cad, and speaking as a man again, I am satisfied that he deserved all he. got and a good deal more. Clemonts wanted to clear his dead sister's name of imputations east upon it, and deliberately committed a brench of the law to get the matter ventilated. I grant Ciements's action was the only way to do so. I am very sorry indeed that it is my duty to 'onter a conviction against Clements. My sympathies arc entirely with him, but I must not allow that to run away with what is a correct exposition of tho law. Mr. Elliott's conduct is such that although it does not disentitle him to I the protection of the law, it is such as will entitle Clements to the sympathy of the average man." Finally Mr. Frazer said he would enter a conviction, though sorry he had to do so, but would not inflict further penalty. Mr. Ostler's application for costs was refused.