A TRIVIAL CASE

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 218, 23 December 1910, Page 3

A TRIVIAL CASE

THE AFTERMATH OF SPILLING THE .SOUP.

A ease that was the subject of much amusement was heard at the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning, before Mr. Fitzherbert, S.M., and quite a number of spectators occupied the body oi the court. The charge was one of disorderly behaviour against John Edward Avery, in Egmont street, on the night oi the 24th November, contrary to section 10, sub-section 25, of the Borough'bylaws.

The facts, as set out by Sergeant Haddrell, who conducted the prosecution on behalf of the police, were that defendant kicked over a bucket of soup which the employees of a caterer for a Masonic function were taking to the banquet hall. Mr. Quilliam, who appeared for the defendant, pleaded not guilty, but admitted the facts as far as the by-law was concerned and other general matters in the information. Edward James Whitehouse, constable, deposed that he was on duty at Egmont street on the night of the 24th, ana heard some very loud laughing about 10.15. Avery was amongst the crowd of young men whom he found. o"n the street, and consequent on complaint being made, he spoke to Avery about kicking over a bucket of soup. Defendant said he did not know it contained soup, that no one was near it at the time, and that in kicking it he had fallen over and spoilt his cricketing trousers. The incident occurred under the verandah at Griffiths and Co.'s.

Mr. Quilliam: Your statement leads the court to infer that it was in consequence of the laughter that you went up Egmont street. —That is so. Were you not going in that direction and trying the doors of. the business places?^—No, I was just making in that and I might have tried the doors as I went along. I was just taking my ordinary found. <

Wasn't it a fact that you didn't go in consequence of the laughter, but in your ordinary round?—No, but I would have gone some time later on that account.

Did not Avery say the bucket had no right to be on the footpath, and he did not know there was anything in it; and r didn't you suggest that he should go and see Wooller (the caterer) and pay the damages and there would be no more trouble about it?—No, I didn't, as the matter did not rest with me.

■ Avery refused then to do this?—l don't think he made any reply. You made out a report and upon that report the present proceedings were instituted?— Yes.

And the disorderly behaviour consists of kicking over a receptacle containing soup! —Yes. "Your Worship," said Mr. Quilliam, "the gravamen of the offence is kicking over a bucket!" His Worship: Where was the bucket? —Outside Griffiths and Co.'s.

Did you see it there? —No, but there was the marks of the soup having been spilled. Was it in the middle of the footpath in anyone's way?— Yes. George Wooller, baker and confectioner's assistant., s<ud he was carrying the soup and had stopped to allow his brother to take his turn. Avery came running along and pushed his brother and kicked the bucket. t . \- To Mr. Quilliam: He placed the bucket on the footpath wfnle he engaged in conversation with a friend of his named Julian. There were about two gallons of soup in the bucket. Mr. Quilliam: You understand that these proceedings have been instituted quite against your father's wish?— Yes. Esmond Julian gave evidence of being pushed and sent spinning by .Avery while in conversation with Wooller.

Mr. Quilliam: If there was a party of gentlemen within ten yards of you they could have seen you, could they not?— Yes.

This closed the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Quilliam said the circumstances were extremely trivial,, and it would be shown that defendant was not in (he slightest to blame. The bucket had been placed on the footpath, and it was a question whether in doing so ne parties carrying the soup were not guilty. Nevertheless, the facts were that four of the party, including Mr. Chappell (who was manager of the .cricket team), were walking along Egmont street, the remainder being in front. They had reached the Trocadero and defendant said "Let us overtake the others." He started to run and saw what he took to be an empty kerosene tin in the middle of the footpath. It was really a bucket of soup which was to regale the members of the Masonic body who were waiting at the Brougham street hall. Avery kicked the bucket and literally fell in the soup. Avery was a thoroughly respectable young man, and there was no reason to doubt his word. He told the police that he thought it was an empty tin and had kicked it. If the police were to take any proceedings, it should be against the people who had placed a bucket of hot soup on the footpath to the danger of pedestrians. It was greatly to be regretted that the case had been brought; the owner of the soup did not complain and even the Masonic body were not aggrieved that eou-p had been struck off the menu. Whilst it was the duty of citizens to assist in bringing to book those guilty of disorderly conduct, it was to be deprecated that a charge of this nature" had been brought, and it was a great" pity that the defendant had been called) upon to answer such a charge. He was quite satisfied that after His Worship heard the defence he would dismiss the case on its merits.

Defendant deposed that he had been; to Urenui with the Orrington Road, cricket team on November 24. On returning he and the other members of the team had supper, and afterwards' walked up Egmont street. Some of the' members of the team were a little behind the others, witness being amongst, the party in the rear. When the latter were about opposite the Trocadero he' suggested that they should run and catch up with the others, who were then, by Gilmour and Clarke's office. He ran some yards, and then saw an object on the footpath. Remarking "What's this?" he tried to kick it out of the way, thinking that it was an empty kerosene tin which had been placed there by those in front for a joke. If he had known, it was a bucket of soup he would cer-' tainly not have kicked it over. He saw no one in the immediate vicinity of the bucket. It was not possible for him to have bumped Julian without seeing the latter. Witness was surprised to find that the obstacle was so solid. It overbalanced him, and he fell in the soup literally. George Wooller then taxed : him with having kicked over his soup, and witness told him that he had not known it was a bucket of soup. The party then continued on its • way, and met Constable Whitehouse walking down trying the doors of offices to see if they were locked. They said "Goodnight" to him, and he replied "Goodnight." Witness did not see that Whitehouse could have had any knowledge of what had happened. When they were in Devon street Whitehouse came after him and asked him what he meant by kicking over the soup. Witness told him he had* not, known that it was a bucjeet - pi '{Soup, and 'that it .l.j I ,."DEUtfI.

Wooller, sen., the next morning, "square" matters with him, and there would be no more trouble. Witness replied that he would not. In answer to Sergeant Haddrell, witness said he made the same excuse to Constable Whitehouse at the time as he made in Court.

Sergeant Haddrell: Do you think it was a proper thing to kick a bucket about the town in the night-time any more than in the day-time? Mr. Quilliam said the bucket was not kicked about the town.

His Worship: I often kick things off the footpath myself. Mr. Quilliam:.l have kicked hats and found bricks in them! Sergeant Haddrell to witness: You did not see,Wooller or Julian? —No, I did not until I got upon my feet after the fall. I did not rush in between the Wooller's. •

Arthur Lewis Chappell, journalist, stated that he accompanied the Carrington Road team to Urenui as manager, and also to report the match. When they returned they had what was really a very late tea, and afterwards walked up Egmont street towards Devon street. Six or seven of the party were some thirty yards in front of defendant, witness, and two others. When the smaller party were in front of the Trocadero Avery said something about overtaking the others, and began to run. Witness did not think it was Worth while running, but quickened his pace. Then witness caught sight of an object on the footpath under Messrs. Griffiths and •Col's verandah. He could make out the form of a man near the wall of the building, and another on the edge of the pavement, between the verandah posts. The object mentioned was in the centre of the footpath, apparently in a straight line with the two men and equidistant between them. The next thing that witness saw was the defendant 'falling over the object. Witness's first iiapression was that the men he saw wore window-cleaners engaged in cleaning Griffiths and Co.'s windows. When Avery fell over-the obstacle, witness noticed steam rising from the ' footpath, and concluded that Avery had spilt a tia of hot water intended for some special purpose, and that there might be some little trouble. He therefore hastened up to the scene," to prevent trouble if possible. When Wooller a,sked Avery what he meant by kicking over his soup, the latter said that lie did not know there was soup in whai he had kicked. There was some little argument, Wooller wanting 25s for the soup, and a little laughing when the men in front found that Avery was "really in the soup." But it was not very loud laughing, and witness certainly did not think it could have been heard in Devon street.

His Worship: Anyway, laughing, however loud, would not constitute disorder 1 - ly behaviour. Continuing his evidence, witness said that when he got up to Avery, he noticed a third man leaning against the corner door of Messrs. Griffiths and Co.'s premises, and -another, sitting against the King street window of the building. The party then continued toward Devon street, passing on its way Constable Whitehouse, who. was. walking somewhat leisurely along, "trying" the doors. Whitehouse said "good-night" in answer to- their "good-night." When Whitehouse overtook them in - Devon street he said that if Avery saw Mr. Wooller, sen., the next morning and "squared" matters there would be no more trouble.

Mr. Quilliam: You understand tire value of language, Mr. Chappell: do you think there was. anything which could be termed disorderly behaviour? —No, everything was very quiet, and I could not say there' was any hilarious conduct. His Worship: Laughter is not disorderly conduct, no niatter how loud it might be. Sergeant Haddrell: Did you think this, was purely an accident, then? —Yes. In reply to further, questions witness said that there was an arc light in the centre of Egmont street, where King street crossed, but the light "jumped" a good deal. One of the men with the bucket was standing in a line with the verandah posts and the other was in the shadow of the verandah. Mr. Quilpam said he had other witnesses to call, hut His Worship said he did not think it was necessary. In his opinion if defendant thought it was a kerosene tin he was not only justified in what he-, had done, but had done the right thing. The bucket was left on the footpath and no one was apparently in charge. It was certainly a very dangerous thing to leave the bucket there even for a short time. At any rate it wa9 only an error of judgment on the part of the defendant in kicking this thing. He could not know it con-, tained soup or even that it was a bucket of anything. He could not hold that defendant was guilty of anything approaching disorderly behaviour, and the only conduct proved in this direction was the kicking over of the bucket. The information would be dismissed.