SIX MEN CHARGED

Hokitika Guardian, 29 April 1932, Page 5

SIX MEN CHARGED

PLEAS OF GUILTY

UPPER KOKATAHI DISTURBANCE, Although pleading guilty, a stout denial to much of tile evidence during the case was given by defendants in' the Hokitika Magistrate's Court This morning when Thomas 'Harcourt, Richard Andrew Harcourt, George G. Atkinson, Arthur Lambert, David McWha and l-.ii. vVilder word charged with disorderly,y behaviour. Thomas Harcourt was also charged with using obscene language.

Defendants were represented by Mr J. Murdoch who entered a plea of guilty in each ease, on the charge of disorderly behaviour. Sergeant C. J. King said that four of the defendants were residents of Reiter,ingi, the other two residing in Westport. On March 30th it appeared that the six of thorn got together co have a night out. They left Koiterangi and came to Ivoktftahi. Reaching the Upper -Kokafnhi hotel, they became particularly noisy and demanded drink, The licensee, Mr E. T. Sherriff declined to serve them, whereupon, it he defendants persisted in their demands, Mr Shertiff otfill declined tb serve tlWrn, and told them “to clear out," Other residents on the scene tried to get them to go away, inii, for their efforts they only got abuse, Defendants kicked the front and back doors and tried to enter, and told the licensee that, if he didn’t serve them, they would get it themselves-. They actually took off •their coats. The -Harcourts were well known residents of Koiterangi, and it ! was a regrettable thing that the de-1 fendants should take it on themselves I to act in such a manner. Both of the j Harcburts were under age. When it was found thajt they would not V r o, Constable Drummond was called, ana j it was not until 2 a.m. that they finally) went home. They had had liquor, but were, not drunk, and were overburdened by their own importance. Mr Murdoch asked the Magistrate to devote his -attention to what occurred in the public place, and not the licensed premises, which did 'not enter the charge. He agreed with Sergeant King that it was <a regrettable occurrence. He, referred to the h’eh esteem in which the parents of two of the defendants, were held in the community, and appealed to the Bench to deal leniently. The case would cause great pain for the relatives, and he had been instructed n-ot- to de'nv the charge. Mr Murdoch said that the car hac! broken down, and the language com- ( plained of was directed at the car, and i j not at Mrs Shenvif. There had been a { bit of a “dust-up” among defendants, i but It was soon ov&f. j “i do not It flow of flny other case j i where I have been able to put Up 'such j-n honert plug for lenienoe," adder 1 j Mi Murdoch, The .Magistrate; After what the police have said, there is no need for j evidence t-o be called. I- seems that [ defendants went wild on this particular j evening, but I have no doubt that they j have regretted it. Of course, it is a serious thing to decide whether names should be suppressed—a discretion which j the Bench is always unwilling Ito ever- 1 -use. as publicity acts as a deterrent. 11 do not think this is a case for .suppression. They are all old enough to know that they were doing wrong, j Each would be convicted and ordered to pay costs. Mr Murdoch appealed 'for suppression of the -names of those defendants who were under 21 years of age. The Magistrate declined, adding that they were old enough to know what was right and what was. wrong. The costs varied from 13s to 11s. Thomas Far court was then charged with using obscene language. Mr Murdoch -entered a plea of guilty and elected that the case should be dealt with ,summarily. Mr Murdoch said (that the words, referred to slipped out, and were directed at fl-e car, not at any person. Sergeant King: I believe this man is the ringleader of the, whole tiling. ] am sorry to contradict Mr Murdoch, but the language van not- directed at the car. but to the wife of the licensee because defendants were refused liquor. , One of my witnesses said that he would not have used the language to . a dog. It was decidedly obscene, and j used to a female beause they could j not get their own way. It does nor, , speak well for defendant. It was used more than once The Magistrate: Well, we, had better hoar -some evidence. Sergeant King: I was told that a plea of guilty was to lie entered and ; that there would be no need for wit- j nesses, so they were ordered not to come (feorge Atkinson, of Westport, entered the box and denied hearing the language staled in the charge.

Mr .Murdoch: If you wore told that they were used to the licensee’s wife, wliat would you say.—l would say it was a deliberate lie. Air Murdoch: 'There was a hit of a .skirmish between two of you, was there not;? —Between all of us, but wo were the best of friends after. Sergeant King: You were one of tho six guilty of disorderly conduct, weren’t you?--It all depends wliat you mean liv disorderly conduct. Sergeant. King: It doesn’t matter. You pleaded guilty Sergeant King: Have you seen the information. - No. Sergeant King: Then wbv did you swear that you had not beard the language, alleged in the information.— Witness admitted that, lie had seen it.

King: W r as it bad language?— It could hardly be anything else to a Ford.

Defendant denied using the words to the liccnfioo’s wife

Mr Murdoch 1 You know Mr and Mrs ghemff,—Yep. There woe no bad blood,—No.

Sergeant King: You were not allow'd. in the hotel, isn’t that so—No. .Ye were in the hotel. The proprietor let us in. Were you inside for long.—No. Were you forced out.—No. Did! you get everything you wanted. —Yes.

And left on the best of terms.—Yes. Where did you leave the car.—lt jibbed near the hotel. That’s where you used the language. —ISo. .

You would’t use it in a whisper.— Well. . . .

If the defendant’s wife had been on the verandah she could have heard it ? I didn’t know she was there. You were supplied with liquor.— Yes.

How old are you. —Twenty. And it was served! by whom.—Mr ' Slier riff, ; Before the Constable arrived, j weren’t you advised to go home. No. Didn’t Air Hewer tell you to go.— Well, yesAnd Air McCall urn.—-No What did you .say? You didn’t tell 1 im to go to a hot place.—No. Anyway, the language could hare been heard a chain away. Yes. . Evidence was- then given by Inn Wilden, who said that he know tne words complained of but did not hear them addressed to anybody. Sergeant King: Wliat did you have to drink.—Oil, porter gaff, the usual you know. Who paid.—We. all did. How many drinks did you have.—A good few. , How long were you there?: A good time. You had no trouble on getting into the hotel—No. Were you all sober. —Well, 1 wasn t. You know, not bad though;. Arthur Lambeth, aged 19, also denied hearing the language complained of, but if it, had been used, it was at the car. He corroborated the previous evidence, admitting being served with

liquor. • , Scrgt. King: Did you come out sober. —\A ell 1 wasn t drunk. To Air Murdoch lie said there was no ill feeling toward Air or Airs Sherri If.

David AlcWlia, aged 18. admitted |'roe entr v to the hotel, but denied having any strong drink.

The Alagistrate to Scrgt-. King: Do von wish to bring evideimc?—Well it the Court is satisfied tho language was use there is no need.

The Alagistrate said there was no doubt that, the language was used, and in a loud voice, although perhaps it had been used to the ear. Defendant was convicted nnd fined Cl and costs.