EARLY MORNING RUCTIONS.

Taranaki Daily News, 3 February 1922, Page 7

EARLY MORNING RUCTIONS.

BOARDING HOUSE AFFAIR

A CHARGE OF OBSCENE LANGUAGE. Disturbances at a boarding house in St. Aubyn Street were responsible for a number of cases heard in the New Ply? mouth Court yesterday, and, according to some of the evidence, the proceedings on the date in question, January 17, lasted till the early hours of the mornwg. On the information of the police, Leonard Copestake was charged with using obscene language within the hearing of passers-by in a public place (St. Aubyn Street) on January 17. He pleaded not guilty, and elected to be dealt with summarily.

Charles Lloyd, proprietor of the board-ing-house, said Copestake had secured rooms with him. On the morning of January 17, at 2.30, Copestake was coming down the stairs and used the language detailed in the information. He could be heard in the street. A constable accompanied witness, as he had just been to the station to seek the intervention of the police. Cross-examined, he admitted that he had to get the police down to his house frequently on account of Copestake, and also other men.

To the Bench: There was a person standing on the street, Outside, and witness was informed it was the night watchman. The words used by accused dould be heard in the street.

Other witnesses were Robert Gilbert, lodger at the house, and Minnie E. Lloyd, wife of C. Lloyd. Constable W. Butler said he was called to Lloyd’s place at 2.45 on the 17th, it being alleged that Copestake was causing a disturbance. Witness gave corroboration as to the language used. When witness came out of the house there were three men standing on the footpath. Mr. Bennett (counsel for defendant) 1 suggested that the case was the result of quarrelsome parties living together in the same house. He thought the proceedings were really in the nature of vindictiveness. Copestake was the occupier of rooms in the house prior to the occurrence, but had now removed, and no further trouble was likely to occur. Copestake urged that the Lloyds had done their best to annoy him. Counsel submitted that on the evidence there was nothing on. which to enter a conviction. Before a man could be found guilty on such an offence it must be proved that the words mentioned were used within the hearing of a person in a public place. In giving his decision, His Worship said there was a strong presumption that the night watchman was on the footpath during the time the occurrence in the house took place, and it was therefore within the hearing of a person in a public place. If a conviction was entered he would, certainly sentence Copestake to a term of imprisonment. - There was, however, just the slightest doubt that the words were not used within the hearing of anyone in a public place. This was admittedly stretching the position rather in favor of the accused. The case would be dismissed.

PROHIBITION ORDERS BROKEN. Connected with the foregoing charge, informations were brought against Copestake and John Joseph Larkin, alleging that they committed breaches of their prohibition orders on January 17. They pleaded not guilty, and were represented by Mr. Bennett. C. Lloyd gave evidence that he had seen the two accused drinking often since they had been prohibited. On the night of the 16th he saw Mrs. Copestake bringing in beer in a bassinette. The two men made a night of it, and were going till 5 o’clock in the morning. He saw both Copestake and Larkin drinking. He had told them to take the liquor out Of the house.

Constable Butler said that on morning of the 17th he found Copestake and Larkin in the former’s room. Both were very drunk. The defence was that the mere fact that liquor was found in the room was not evidence that the men procured liquor. Senior-Sergeant MeCrorie interposed that the Act provided if a man was drunk it was sufficient evidence of procuring liquor. Giving evidence on oath, both Copestake and Larkin denied that there was any liquor in the. room, or that they had had any drink. Larkin attributed the trouble to annoyance rather than to drink. “That man was a regular pest,” he said, referring to Lloyd. He was proceeding to give an account of Lloyd’s house, concluding with the comment that “she was a rough old shack. I haven’t been used to that sort of thing.’ His Worship enquired if this was all the evidence for the defence, and Mr: Bennett replied that it was. “You need not proceed any further,” said His Worship to the Senior Sergeant, who was cross examining Larkin. “I don’t believe either of these men.”

Copestake and Larkin were each convicted and fined £5, costs 17s, in default four weeks’ imprisonment. Mary Larkin, wife of J. J. Larkin, was then charged with procuring liquor for her husband, a prohibited person, the principal witness being Mrs. Lloyd. Mr. R. H. Quilliam appeared for defendant. After hearing the evidence, His Worship did not think there was sufficient proof for conviction, and dismissed the easel FINED FOR ASSAULT. A private prosecution was brought by Charles Lloyd, who alleged that J. J. Larkin had assaulted him on January 30 by striking him in the face. Accused pleaded not guilty. Complainant stated that Larkin had come to the house about 10.30 at night to see his (Larkin’s) step-daughter. He had no right in the house, however, and witness ordered him out. It was on enw occasion . that accused hit witness with his hand. He had put Larkiri out once, but lie came back into the house again. The defence was a denial of any assault. Larkin’s evidence was to the effect that he went to see his daughter, as she held the laundry ticket for his collars, and he wanted to get them for the next day. Defendant was' convicted, and fined £l, court costs 7s.