The Objectionable Sermon Case.

Manawatu Herald, 8 February 1896, Page 2

The Objectionable Sermon Case.

At the Stipendiary Magistrate's Court on Thursday, the local case of Bar y. Church came on for bearing when

J >hn Rainbow Stansell, proprietor of Wbyte'e hotel, charged William Birnett, minister of the Primitive Methodist Church, that on the 19th day of January, 1896, at Pox ton, ha did use insulting and provoking language to the oomplainant. Mr Innes appeared for complanant and first asked leave to add to the information the following words : — To wit, married men in particular were doing wrong to their wives and families by going to the hotel and and drinking and helping to put fine clothing on Mrs Stansell's back. Mr Innes then said the information was laid under Sec Boi the Justices of the Peaoe Act, 1882. The defendant is a Wesleyan Minister

f- __ _ living at Foxfcon. On Sunday, the 19th Jannary he preached a sermon. ' Amongst other things he attached Mrs Stanaell as set oat in the information. We allege the words were mol£ provoking and likely to create a breach of the peace. A minister in the? pulpit had a right to run down the drink traffic, but he has not a right to attack individuals. The in» formant had a reasonable fear to ex- ; pect a repetition of tha language, in fact, it had been repeated in a letter published in the local newspaper. Supposing Mr Stansell had been in church when the lang uage complained of was used, or any one to whom similar language wag addressed had been present it might have been expected the minister would have been chastised, and thus there would have been caused a breach of the peace. He called: — Henry Walter Blake, who deposed that he knew Mr Barnett ; he heard Mra Stansell's name used by Mr Barnett. Mr Barnett said he was talking to a married man when he said he did not love his wife, " but I do/' he said ; " I don't believe yon, if you did, you'd spend your money on your wife and not put fine clothes on Mrs Stansell's back and other publican's wives." There were 80 to 100 persons present. H« looked upon the language as likely to create a breach of the peace. Thomas Betty deposed— Ho was at church 3 weeks ago and heard Mr Barnett preach a sermon. He heard Mrs Stansell's name used. He referred to hotels and used words about " putting fine clothes on Mrs Stansell's back." Considered the language an error of judgment. By Mr Barnett : In what way was the language used ? Mr Betty : I think you were not meaning any slight on Mrs Stansell. You were speaking on the evils of gambling and drinking. E. S. Thynne was called to prove the publication of Mr Barnett's letter in the Manawatu Herald, which Mr Innes then read, John R. Stansell deposed— He knew Mr Brfrnett by sight. From what he heard. he was much annoyed at what had been said. He was inclined to do what Mr Barnett had said he expeoted he would have done in his letter in the paper, but instead of taking the law into his own hands he had put it in motion in the present case. He held it his duty to protect his wife, and he considered it was the duty of every man to do so. If he had been in church at the time trouble might have arisen. He did not know what might occur in the future. He was annoyed at the lettyA the Manawatu Herald. He haaaho received the following letter since the publication of the first one :— Sir,— l acknowledge receipt to-day of a summons oharging me with having u«ed provoking, r insu ting language. I admit having used the language contained in the published letter, for which I ezptes9 my regret. 1 shall submit the 3ame in cqurc. You need not therefore subpeooa witnesses to prove the above thug avoiding expense. I remain, yours iruly, Samuel Barsett. Mr Innes said that was his case. Mr Barnett admitted preaching the sermon and making the statement. He did not intend it to be provoking. He had nothing but respect for Mrs Stansell as a woman. Why tho acso had been mentioned was that months ago it arose from a conversation he had had and he had used as an illustration of the evils of drinking. He thought as he had made a public blunder he ought to make a public apology. He admitted making the statements with regret and had nothing more to say. The Magistrate said:— The fact of the statement made having been made in the church I have nothing to do with it. To test this case I have to ask myself was the statement of such provoking language that if Mr Stansell was before me for an assault owing to the use of such lang Uftge, should I consider he had laboured under great provocation ; I certainly should, and so judged by that test, though I cannot say I think the words insulting, I deem them provoking and calculated to make a husband very angry, and to incite him to unlawful acts. In re gard to the letter published in the Makawatu Herald it was in all respects but one a good letter and was meant as an apology. lam asked to bind over defendant not to repeat bis language. To do so it should be shown that it wa9 likely to be re« Boated, but in face of the letter pub fished and also that defendant says ha Will not repeat the offence, I tbink he will not. He apologises in a very frank way. I think all the purposes of the action will be served by re cording a conviction and ordering de» fendant to pay all expenses. The costs only asked for were the •olicitor's fee, 21 s ; Court fee?, 17s. There were a number of subpaned witnesses but no claim was made for their expenses.