Jocular John Johnson

INDECENT CARDS.

John Johnson was charged at the Police Court this morning that on May 11, at Neidpath road, Mornington, he exposed to public view a certain obscene card. 

Chief-detective Herbert asked for a remand till Tuesday week, as there were a number of other similar charges pending against accused, the details of which would have to be investigated. 

Mr Hanlon, who appeared for accused, stated that he did not object to a remand, but the reason given by the chief detective was insufficient. There was only one charge against accused in the meantime, and he saw no reason why that could not be proceeded with. As to this case, he did not object to a remand till to-morrow or Wednesday. 

Chief-detective Herbert said that the police would not be ready to go on then. 

Mr Hanlon again objected to remanding the case beyond Wednesday next. The man was charged with exposing an indecent card to females, and there was no reason why the case should not proceed. 

The Magistrate said that a great many complaints had been made about this matter, and it seemed that the Town Belt was becoming unsafe even of an afternoon. In consequence of these complaints efforts had been made by the police to put a stop to the practices complained of. 

Mr Hanlon admitted that, but argued that it was not a matter of the safety or unsafety of the Town Belt, but of going on with the present case. 

The Magistrate replied that it was a serious matter, and it was desirable to put such a practice down. 

The Chief Detective said that accused was on the Belt for several hours, during which time he exposed filthy pictures to children and to every female who passed. 

Mr Hanlon replied that he was prepared to meet that charge, but would again object to an eight-days' remand. The liberty of the subject had to be considered, and here was a case where a man was willing to meet a certain charge, and yet was required to be sent back, probably to gaol. 

The Chief Detective said that the police wished to prepare the whole history of this man's doings, a proceeding which would no doubt affect the measure of judgment. 

After further argument the magistrate granted the remand asked for by the police. 

Mr Hanlon: Will you fix bail? I presume the man is not to be kept in custody. 

The magistrate fixed bail, accused in £100 and two sureties of £50 each.  -Evening Star, 13/5/1907.

GROSS INSULTS TO WOMEN

CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY.

ISAAC TAYLOR VINDICATED.

This morning Isaac Taylor appeared at the Police Court for the last time in connection with the charges of acts of an indecent nature in the presence of women, and left without a stain on his character. When he was before the Court on Monday, the 13th inst., the case against him was adjourned, the police then stating that it appeared to be a case of mistaken identity; and on his undertaking to appear this morning he was not required to find bail. This morning, when the case was called on, the Magistrate (Mr C. C. Graham, S.M.) asked Chief-detcctive Herbert what steps he proposed to take. 

Detective Herbert said the police would offer no evidence. It had been clearly established that Isaac Taylor was the wrong man, and no further good would be gained by prolonging the thing. "We are satisfied,” continued Mr Herbert, referring to another man arrested on a similar charge, and who subsequently appeared before the Court, “that the other is the right man.” 

Mr C. J. Payne, who appeared for Mr Taylor, said that he was pleased that the police had made this statement, because it was most important to his client, who was a public man (Mr Taylor is a member of a road board on the Peninsula). He had no doubt His Worship would dismiss his client without a stain on his character.

“Other proceedings,” continued Mr Payne. “will probably be taken to get some return for what he has suffered. There is a general impression that the police are to blame for his arrest, but it is a case of mistaken identity. The police were justified in arresting him. The mistake was that certain ladies identified this man, and it turns out that he is not the man at all. So far as I can make out, the police are not in any way to blame." 

The Magistrate: The case is dismissed, and I understand that no stain is attached to his character. 

JOHN JOHNSON CHARGED.

A REMAND GRANTED.

John Johnson was then placed in the dock, and charged with exposure on the Town Belt on April 3. As soon as the charge was read over he said “Not guilty.” and was informed that it was an indictable offence, for which he had the option of being tried by a jury. 

Chief-detective Herbert, who was conducting the case for the police, here intimated that the charge he wished to be heard first was that of showing an obscene picture to a woman at Neidpath road on the 11th inst.

Mr Hanlon, who appeared for accused, asked if that was an indictable offence. 

Detective Herbert said that all the cases were brought under the Indictable Offences Act. (There are eleven charges pending against him.) 

Mr Hanlon: I ask for a remand until Thursday. The position is that I don’t know whether there is anything in these charges against this man. He is a man who works at Port Chalmers, and it is possible that on some of the days mentioned here he may have been at work at Port Chalmers. It has already been stated to the Court that some of these informants have made a mistake as to the identity of the offender, and it is just possible that they are making a mistake now. It is only right that accused should have every facility to prepare his defence. I want to inquire into the man's whereabouts. 

The Magistrate asked whether there was anything different in the present charges from that of Monday, the 15th inst., when accused was first before the Court and remanded on a charge of having exhibited an obscene post card on May 11. 

Mr Hanlon: There was one charge a week ago, and now there are eleven. Mr Hanlon continued that he had only been notified of the fresh charges yesterday by the police. 

Detective Herbert said the accused was informed on Saturday, and had had access to his solicitor. Of course, if this was a genuine application to give accused an opportunity to inquire as to whether or not be had been in the neighborhood on the dates these offences were alleged to have been committed, there could be no reasonable objection to a remand. Mr Hanlon had referred to the possibility of there being a mistake in this case, and to the fact of there having been a mistake in the previous case. But on the prisoner Johnson were found certain pictures which had since been identified. The police would produce fifteen witnesses to prove eleven charges, and would produce corroborative evidence in some of these cases. They would also produce a book found in prisoner’s possession containing notes referring to the women whom he had met, which would speak for themselves. Prisoner had also been identified. There was no question about that in this case. 

Mr Hanlon disagreed. He also objected to the phrase “if the application is a genuine one,” just used by Detective Herbert. 

Detective Herbert said prisoner was entitled to a remand. As to Mr Hanlon's other remarks, the police were accustomed to them.

Mr Hanlon said that Taylor had been picked out for identification. 

Detective Herbert: The police, believing him to be innocent, assisted in establishing the alibi and believing this man to be guilty, will do their duty. 

Mr Hanlon: I don’t want any gratuities. 

Detective Herbert: Well, you can have that gratuitously. 

The Magistrate then granted a remand on the charge in question until Thursday, the 23rd inst., to which date the hearing of the other charges was also adjourned. The question of bail then arose, and it was mentioned that prisoner had been unable to find bail for the amounts fixed on the 15th inst.—viz., himself in his own recognisance of £100 and two sureties of £50 each.

Detective Herbert pointed out that now there were eleven charges, some of them very serious. He did not like to oppose bail unnecessarily.

The Magistrate asked if the same amounts would be satisfactory. 

Detective Herbert: I dread appearing harsh to Mr Hanlon.

Mr Hanlon: I am as mild as they make them.

Bail was then fixed in the same amounts as before.  -Evening Star, 21/5/1907.

JOCULAR JOHN JOHNSON.

Eleven Charges of Indecency.

Dunedin is a moral little village. This is the general verdict, and even the tootling Thompson, who presides over the Young Men's Christian Society admits (and he ought to know) that fair Dunedin is as the unsullied virgin compared with other cities of sin. Occasionally, however, a lustful lout comes along with an abnormal fancy for the females. Of late, the doings of' such a one have been making the feminine bosoms flutter with mingled horror, shame, and anger; the men, too, in reading of his lawless acts, are visibly moved. John Johnson is the long, lady-loving loafer who has made such a dirty splash among the modest ones of Dunedin. He was hauled up at the Police Court for having exposed himself and other indecent things to the eyes of women and girls. The paths up over the Town Belt, which Dunedin readers have so often traversed on their way to Mornington, Belleknowes, and Roslyn, have been the scene of his loiterings. The winsome air of suburbia which pervades these places seems to have suited this cove very nicely, for (if this be the individual) he has haunted the same tracks day and night for some weeks. The matter was put into the hands of the D's, who promptly made an arrest. Isaac Taylor was the victim, and the wimming trooped down gleefully to view the catch. They clapped their hands with themselves and pulled him out of a batch of others as the rabid rotter who had so shockingly accosted them, but when the thing came to Court Isaac turned out to be the wrong man, so John Johnson was nabbed and identified. He came before grave Magistrate Graham last week, with Mr. Hanlon to defend. There were ten charges of showing indecent pictures to women and girls, and the eleventh referred to the study from life he was supposed to have given one of the unappreciative nymphs. The Court was cleared, but the craving of some minds for filthy stories was evident in the reluctance with which the horde of hoodlums ambled, out. One old josser positively could not

TEAR HIMSELF AWAY, and he took a stand at one of the doors, which he managed to keep partially open. Others of a more youthful nature craned their naughty necks and obtained a chequered view of the proceedings through the ventilators in the wall of the passage. Ere long a troop of dames persuaded the court orderly to let them pass. They stalked assertively in, and sat flown with a sort of "We're-here-to-stay" atmosphere about them. Alf Hanlon protested that the wives should not be allowed to remain inside when the Court was supposed to be cleared. However, Chief Detective Herbert (he means well, does Patrick), remarked that the new arrivals were there for the benefit of their relations who were to give evidence. The presence of such proper people would give courage to the shy and excessively modest girls. The Magistrate decided that the ladies might remain, and the people in question responded with a series of "I-told-you-so" nods and smiles. Those outside did not miss much. The story was told by about a dozen of the decoyed darlings. They all related the circumstances unblushingly, with the exception of one little dot who, not being accustomed to talking about such things in public, found herself in an outburst of tears Like the others, her emotion was shortlived. The details were similar in each case. The girl or woman had been and met this man, who stood right in the middle of the path before the object of his infamous attention. Then, holding out a picture — at small photo — he said Do you know what address this is?" or "Can you tell me if this is the right street?" The picture was usually quite enough and the pure little maiden fled in terror. It was of a woman insufficiently attired. Only one woman opened her mouth to him, and she ejaculated "You low brute" before girding up her loins for the retreat. Mitchell, detective, told of the daring way in which he had captured the prisoner, how he had found it necessary to call in his knowledge of the art of jiu-jitsu in effecting his arrest, how he had found certain indecent pictures on his person, together with a diary making reference to the women he had met; and how, on the way to the central lockup, Johnson asked, "Is there a fine attached to this?" and wanted to know what Mitchell thought it would be. He also said that it would break his old lady up, and excused himself by remarking that he had been drinking. At the time of arrest Mitchell found the man sober. The charges were heard separately and, without questioning any of the witnesses, Hanlon reserved his defence. The dark-eyed man was consigned to the Supreme Court. -NZ Truth, 1/6/1907.

JOHN JOHNSON GAOLED.

On His Indecent Indictments.

Gets a Fiver.

John Johnson, it will be remembered, was before the Police Court on charges of exhibiting indecent pictures to females. When he came before the Supreme Court last week, this long slab of lustful intent gurgled "Guilty" to the four indictments on which he was arraigned, covering eleven offences. He gave his age as 31. Alf Hanlon told the Court that he had been asked by the mater of the affair in the dock to point out that the young fellow who had done these damnable deeds had been unable to get work in Dunedin (he was an engineer), and had to go to Wellington. Therein lay his downfall. It was there he fell into the bad practices, which had found a cruel climax in the present extraordinary exhibitions. J. F. M. Fraser, Crown Prosecutor, remarked that when the suggestion was made that the man was insane he had got three medical experts to examine this booby's brainbox. In January, February, and March Fraser gave the doctor's decision: The man could not be certified to as being insane. J. F. M. continued that the prisoner was 

A SEXUAL FETISHIST, and as soon as his tether was untied he would be pursuing his corrupt course again with all the vile vehemence of the past. Dr. Coughtrey got himself into the witness box, and averred that Johnson was on the borderland of insanity. The doctor, however, could not declare him insane, to allow of his being sent to an asylum. His Honor Mr. Justice Williams, taking the man to he sane, passed a sentence of fifteen months on each of the four indictments, making the total gift five years. The Judge added, that if the man "was really insane" he would be deposited in an institution for such beings. Applying a little common sense, and nothing more, to this remarkable case, the outsider at once comes to the conclusion that this gent was absolutely stark-staring dotty, for who in his sound mind would do what this poor fellow has been doing, for months past? There was no satisfaction in doing as he did. No mention of rape or similar acts of abandon were mentioned. A reasonable suggestion might be that he got hold of these two filthy pictures, and thinking them prime, deemed it advisable to show them to every married woman and blushing girl he could confront. Was that the act of a sane man?  -NZ Truth, 8/6/1907.

The newspaper record, as offered by "Papers Past" shows no further appearances by "Jocular John" after his tether was untied.  Perhaps prison had a suitable deterrent effect.  Perhaps he went off to the Great War and did not return.  Perhaps he changed his name and habits on regaining freedom.  It was much more difficult in the new century than in preceding years to  preserve a new identity when brought into a courtroom, and had he been arrested again in his "jocularity," you may be assured that the New Zealand Truth would have had something to say about it.