LARRIKINISM IN PATEA.

Patea Mail, Volume IX, Issue 1136, 9 January 1884, Page 2

LARRIKINISM IN PATEA.

At the U.M. Court yesterday Kipps Baldwin and John R, Richards Avcre brought up charged with-a breach of the Vagrant Act, 1866, Amendment Act. 1869, Section 4, by writing obscene Avoids and representations in a public place on January Ist, 1884. The prisoner Richards pleaded guilty to Avriting some of the words mentioned in the summons, hut he denied Avriting others. The other prisoner pleaded not guilty. Sergeant Donovan said lie would call the boy Richards who had pleaded guilty to give evidence against Baldwin. John Richards said he recollected being with young Baldwin on New Years Eve. He was with him when Avitncss was writing on Gibson’s bouse. Ho did not see Baldivin Avrite anything. He did not see .him get on the windoAV sill. He saw Baldwin Avith chalk. He saAV the figure of a man which had been drawn on Gibson’s door, hut he did not know who drew it, ' By the Court: He Avrote the word he pleaded guilty to on the shutter. He was in company Avith Baldwin. A boy called Davis Avas with them, but Avitness did not see him write anything. Hudson Davis recollected being with the last Avitness and Baldwin on New Year’s Eve. He saw them standing in front of Gibson’s door. Ho saw the two standing on the windoAV sill Avriting, but he, did not see what they Avrote. He did not sec either of the prisoners chalking on the door. He did not recollect telling the police that Richards wrote on the door. Ho kncAv Richards had chalk, and he saw him laughing at the figure on the door. Sergeant Donovan said that the manner in which filthy language had been Avritten up in the "post and telegraph offices Avas something scandalous. BetAveen 1 and 2on New dear’s morning he hoard the rasping of chalk on Gibson’s shutters. He guessed Avhat was the matter, and Constable Crozier went round the back way and met the prisoners near the baker’s. His Woiship said that Baldwin had been brought up before on a charge of larceny, and ho Avas in hopes the caution would have had a good good effect. He had no doubt at all in his oavu mind that Baldwin had written the words, but it was not clearly proved, and he could not sec his way to convict him, although he had no doubt he Avas the worst. The boy Richards owned to the offence, and he would he fined 40s or 14 days imprisonment. Baldwin would be discharged.