BRIGHTON “ KLANSMEN ”
DISGUISED MEN PARADE STREETS.
ENTERTAINING COURT ACTION.
Hugh Birtles, Douglas McLean Whitson, and Frederick Millier were charged on remand at the City Police Court this morning before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., with having used insulting behaviour in view of passers-by, thereby committing a breach of the peace. Birtles was further charged with being an idle and disorderly person, in that, without lawful excuse, he had on his person a disguise. Sub-inspector Fraser prosecuted, and Mr A. O. Hanlon appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty and elected to be dealt with summarily.
Sub-inspector Fraser said that the information was laid under the Police Offences Act, 1903. The evidence would show that there was a considerable amount of feeling existing in Brighton, and this had been very acute for the last two or three years. The trouble took place on January 2, and it would be shown that the three defendants belonged to one of the parties which had directed its attentions to a man named Stevenson. The insulting behaviour really commenced on the morning of January 1, when the effigy of Stevenson was carried about, and later on it was put up on a small building in a section. It was plain that the effigy was meant for Stevenson, who was the chairman of the Brighton Domain Board and other societies in the district. It also ridiculed a physical defect of Stevenson’s. On the wall of the small building was a notice bearing the inscription “Brighton Hall,” and there was also a reference to a “Mr Stiffimsoon.” On January 2 the effigy was carried through Brighton. It was then photographed and taken to the beach, where a mock burial service was held and the effigy was burnt, with sarcastic references made to Mr Stevenson. There were a number of people present, and several were in disguise, but only three of them could be recognised. Even at the present time feeling was running high, and Mr Stevenson was advising his party not to take the law into their own hands. Mr Stevenson had to be protected against this sort of conduct, and he asked for a heavy penalty. There was no excuse whatever for the wearing of disguises, and although no breach of the peace had been committed, there might have been trouble, and even at the present time there was likely to be a breach of the peace.
Sub-inspector Fraser then handed in a card bearing the following inscription, which had been displayed in Brighton: Souvenirs of Brighton. — Visitors may purchase small caskets of ashes from the funeral pyre of the late “Micky Stiffimsoon.” Proceeds in aid of the funds for building “Domain Hall.” — Q, Goorly, undertaker.
Henry Alexander Bush, laborer, Brighton, said he saw a procession came around the corner by the school, then go up to Mitchell’s store. Four masked men were carrying an effigy on a stretcher. Mr Macassey stepped forward and asked that the effigy he held up so that it could be photographed. This was done, and then the effigy was laid down, and one of the masked men made some remark which witness could not remember. Others standing around muttered: “Amen; amen.” The stretcher was then picked up by four men, and, headed by an “undertaker” in tall hat and black coat and with a striped towel round his neck, they made their way down to the beach. Witness recognised three of the masked men as Millier, Birtles, and Whitson. That, was to say, two of them were masked, while Whitson wore a veil.
Mr Hanlon: There are a lot of sandflies about, and he wore a veil.
Witness, continuing, said it was raining at the time. On the beach he heard remarks passed. Millier said (referring to the effigy): “This poor fellow was standing outside all night, and caught a chill and died.” Then he said “Shall we sing a verse?” and some verses were sung to the tune of "Shall We Gather At the River?" a few onlookers joining in. Millier then told the “undertaker” to perform his duties, and the man representing the undertaker said “Dust to dust, ashes to ashes,” and poured black liquor on the effigy. He attempted to light it, but had some difficulty in doing so, so Mr Macassey stepped forward to help. Witness went on to say that he heard Whitson remark that it was peculiar that the smoke should blow over “Micky’s house.” There was a bag on the effigy with “Loot” written upon it. Witness reckoned the effigy represented Malcolm Stevenson.
The Sub-inspector; What did you think about it? — It gave me a feeling as though I would like to rush the men and tear their masks off. But, he added, he was not strong enough; he had not enough mates.
To Mr Hanlon: He had lived in Brighton for twelve years, and was friendly to some of those who went there for holidays and so on. He could not say he was friendly with the accused, though they had never done him any harm. Stevenson had spoken to him since the case, but had not mentioned to him to say that he had the feeling that he would like to rush in and tear the masks off.
Mr Hanlon: There was no row or any trouble? — No.
And the men were going along just as the students do in town? — I don’t know.
Witness continued that Stevenson had him and three other witnesses at his house on Wednesday night, and it was arranged what all of them had to say to-day.
Did he tell you not to forget to say you had the feeling that you would like to rush up and tear off the masks? No, he only told us to tell the truth. They were only there half an hour.
And did it take half an hour to tell you to be sure and tell the truth? Come now, what were you talking about? — It’s not exactly your business.
I think it is; the magistrate will stop me if I’m exceeding my rights. His Worship told witness to answer the questions, and the latter reiterated that the only thing said about the case was that Stevenson reminded them to tell the truth.
Mr Hanlon: Are you a friend of Stevenson's? — Not exactly.
Then how came he to ask you to his house? — Because we were witnesses in the case.
Oh, I see; just to say to you “Now, be sure and tell the truth.’’
James Peter Jones, a farmer, said that on January 2 he saw the procession, in which all the men were dressed in black, and six of them wore masks. The stretcher bearing the effigy was laid down in front of the store, where Macassey’s son took a photograph of the proceedings. The procession went right in front of Stevenson’s, and then went to the beach. Witness identified two of the accused as being present. A mock religious service was held there, and “Canon Evil” said a few words. He asked “Canon Evil” whether it would be warmer in the “next place,” but the “Canon” replied that he did not think so.
Mr Hanlon: The next place is Taieri Mouth. (Laughter.) Witness considered that the proceedings went too far.
To Mr Hanlon: Witness had stood neutral about the matter. Stevenson did not think he was the “governor” of Brighton. Some of the accused were in the church choir at Brighton.
Mr Hanlon: And now you want to put them in gaol. Continuing, witness said that a few had met together at Stevenson's house on Wednesday night. There were three of them present.
Mr Hanlon: But the other “chap” said there were four present.
Witness: Oh, yes, there were four.
Continuing, witness said that they had arranged with Stevenson about what time they were to come to the court. If Stevenson had interfered with the procession he would have certainly joined in. Stevenson did not tell witness that he should not forget to tell the magistrate that he had a feeling when he saw the procession that he would have liked to have torn the masks off the men present. He only identified two of the accused.
Mr Hanlon, pointing to the taller of the accused: Didn’t you see him?
Witness: No.
Mr Hanlon: But he is a cousin of yours, isn’t he?
Witness; Yes. (Laughter.)
William Jones gave similar evidence to that given by the other witnesses regarding the procession. Considering that Stevenson was a cripple he thought it was not right that he should have been taken around in effigy.
To Mr Hanlon: He wanted to take the masks off because he wanted to show the others who the masked men were. He did not do it himself because there were not enough of his friends present. Witness denied going to Stevenson’s house to have a “dress rehearsal" for court day. Stevenson told witness not to forget to tell the court that witness had a feeling that he would like to have torn the masks off those in the procession. Witness only identified two of the accused.
Mr Hanlon: The other one is your cousin?
Witness: Yes. The case is proceeding. -Evening Star, 14/3/1924.
BRIGHTON “KLANSMEN”
COMEDY OF MASKS AND FACES.
ALL CHARGES DISMISSED.
FOOLISH, BUT NOT CRIMINAL, CONDUCT.
The hearing of the charges against Hugh Birtles, Douglas Whitson, and Frederick Millier in connection with the burning of an effigy at Brighton on January 2 was concluded in the Police Court yesterday afternoon. After hearing the evidence for the prosecution and Mr Hanlon's address on behalf of the accused, the magistrate (Mr H. W. Bundle) dismissed all the charges. The court was crowded, and those present were entertained by the humor which Mr Hanlon extracted from his cross-examination of the various witnesses. It was obvious that the case created a great deal of interest amongst what was termed the “rival societies” of Brighton.
William Thomson, law clerk, was the first witness heard after the luncheon adjournment. He described the procession. Heading this, he said, was a man with a towel over his shoulder and under his arm, and then followed five or six masked men, while behind these were several boys with tins. The masked men carried a “bier” with the effigy of Stevenson. “Canon Evil” conducted the “service,” and stated they had all gathered together to bury “Micky Stiffunsoon,” and, at “deceased's” request, they had decided to cremate his “remains,” so that there would be no pollution on the beach. Witness had no doubt that the effigy was meant for Stevenson.
To Mr Hanlon: About a week after the proceedings he visited Stevenson at the latter’s request. Stevenson asked him to describe what had happened, and witness told him what he knew. He denied speaking to Stevenson after witnesses had been ordered out of court that morning. Nothing had been said to him about payment for expenses. Witness considered that the speeches at the “funeral” were marked by malice.
Mr Hanlon: What is malice?
Witness: The speakers were very serious.
Mr Hanlon: But, then, people are generally very serious at a funeral — unless they just go there for the ride. (Laughter.)
Cross-examined by Sub-inspector Fraser, witness said that he was not a member of any of the “societies” at Brighton.
The Magistrate: How many “societies” are there at Brighton?
Sub-inspector Fraser said that there were two parties — one led by Stevenson and the other by Whitson.
Herbert William Ernest Hobson, draper’s assistant, Brighton, said he saw the procession and identified the three accused.
Thomas Braid, greengrocer, said he recognised the accused Whitson as one taking part in the procession.
Arthur Braid, of Brighton, said he bought the photograph produced (which was that of the effigy of Malcolm Stevenson) from Douglas Whitson for 4d.
William Thomas Connor, farmer, said he had seen the first placard, but not the second (larger) one. Mr Stevenson was chairman of the Domain Board.
The Sub-inspector: Can Mr Stevenson dominate everyone in Brighton?
Mr Hanlon asked what this had to do with the case.
His Worship said he did not wish to go into the civic affairs of Brighton.
Duncan Macintosh said that he was away from the district during the procession.
Sub-inspector Fraser: You know something about the feeling in the district?
Mr Hanlon said he objected to this question, as he could get three-fourths of Brighton to say the opposite to what the witness would say.
Arthur Joseph Allen said that he was in Brighton on January 2, but did not see the procession. He did not see a notice on a telegraph pole with reference to “Micky Stiffimsoon.” He did not, in fact, know anything about it.
Mr Hanlon: That will do me, thank you; no questions.
Constable Hamilton said he proceeded to Brighton on January 5 owing to complaints concerning the removal of a small building and the burning of an effigy there. He first saw Birtles, and told him Stevenson had complained of the removal of the building. Birtles admitted that he and others had done this, and that he had taken part in the procession. Whitson, interviewed, said: “If there’s any trouble the money’s up and a lawyer engaged.” He admitted taking part in the procession, but would say nothing about it, not knowing where he stood. He and others had removed the building. Millier had also, admitted taking part in the procession.
Mr Hanlon submitted that, as far as the indictable charge was concerned the accused should be acquitted. They were charged with being idle and disorderly persons in that they had about them articles of disguise without lawful excuse. The onus rested on the accused to show that they had no criminal intent, and counsel contended that no such intent had been shown. The other charge was the one of using insulting behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace; but there was no suggestion that they intended to cause a breach of the peace. The accused had simply gathered at Brighton to have a little fun at the expense of Mr Stevenson. Stevenson had not been called himself, and he thought that this was a little extraordinary that this had not been done. Perhaps accused were not justified in doing what they had done, but if Mr Stevenson felt aggrieved he should have taken action in another court. The evidence went to show that Stevenson had made himself unpopular in the district and had set himself up as a sort of Tsar of Brighton. Other people naturally resented this, and they could not do anything without his opposition. He considered that it was wicked to bring a charge of being idle and disorderly persons against the accused. Stevenson had found out before the matter came to trial that, to succeed, he would have to get someone to swear that they had the feeling that they would like to rush up and tear the masks from the faces of the accused. So he invited the four young gentlemen who were witnesses for the police to come to his house and meet him. All these witnesses had shuffled when asked what took place at that meeting. Then there were the two witnesses who were easily able to pierce the disguise of two of the accused, but not that of the third — who happened to be the cousin of these witnesses. It showed the unreliability of their evidence. Stevenson was an astute gentleman, a very cunning gentleman, and he would tell the witnesses what to say, so that it might be made out that there was very nearly a breach of the peace. The whole thing was utterly ridiculous — a farce. It might have been wrong, perhaps, for the accused to havo done what they did, but if so it was wrong for the students to do what they did every year in the main streets of Dunedin, when they made fearful guys of certain citizens. But everyone took this as a joke, and rightly so. Counsel quoted cases in support of his contention that the charges had not been proved.
The Magistrate, said that, as pointed out by Mr Hanlon, the Victorian case clearly showed, so far as the charge of being idle and disorderly persons was concerned, that it was sufficient to prove that there was no criminal purpose in the act. In the present case, it was only by a greater stretch of imagination than he (the magistrate) was capable of that criminal purpose could be assumed. Those charges, therefore, would be dismissed.
Regarding the other charge, that of insulting behaviour, His Worship said the conditions must clearly show intention on the part of the accused to create a breach of the peace. The whole of the evidence showed that the object of the accused was to hold a certain person up to public ridicule. But there was no attempt to show that this had been done in the presence of a number of partisans of Mr Stevenson, or that it had been done in such a way that there was a probability, or even a reasonable possibility, of a breach of the peace being occasioned. He hardly thought that the conduct of the accused, foolish though it was, was likely to cause a breach of the peace on the part of those present.
One or two witnesses had given halfhearted evidence to the effect that they had felt indignation, and had been somewhat inclined to take steps to vent it. That feeling, however, as Mr Hanlon had pointed out, had stopped in their own breasts. There could not be very much importance attached to this part of the evidence. The conduct of the accused was more that of the university students who had been granted at a certain time a certain license to do foolish things. The accused, however, as men, should have got beyond that stage. One would expect such things as the burning of effigies of unpopular persons to be carried out by boys, but not by men. If there was feeling between Stevenson and certain others in the district it seemed childish that the latter should adopt the methods they had adopted in order to criticise the methods of their opponents. They had only themselves to blame for being brought before the court. Mr Stevenson had his remedy in another court, if he wished to take it for the indignity which he apparently thought he had suffered. But the police could not succeed under the Police Offences Act. These charges would also be dismissed. -Evening Star, 15/3/1924.
THE BRIGHTON BEACH FEUD
INSULTING EFFIGY BURNED
MAGISTRATE DISMISSES A CRIMINAL ACTION
Mock Funeral and Allusions (From "Truth's" Dunedin Rep.) When someone uses objectionable behavior, for which, if actionable, there is a remedy at civil law, it is not always good policy to try to make a questionable use of the criminal law in order to have that person punished.
The long looked for hearing of the charges connected with what has been popularly referred to as the Brighton burlesque, which centred round the New Year revels of a section of the frequenters of Dunedin's most favored seaside resort, was finally proceeded with last week. That the case had created considerable interest was apparent from the fact that the portion of the Court reserved for the public was not nearly big enough to accommodate all those who sought admittance, among whom were many women. The three defendants — Hugh Birtles, Douglas McLean Whitson, and Frederick Millier — were called on to answer two charges; first of using insulting behavior within view of passers-by with intent to provoke a breach of the peace; and, secondly, with being idle and disorderly persons, in that they had on their persons, without lawful excuse, articles of disguise.
A STORMY COAST. Sub-Inspector Fraser said it was an unfortunate fact that during the last two or three years none too happy an atmosphere had been hovering over Brighton, and the frequenters of the place were divided into two distinct parties, of one of which Mr. Malcolm Stevenson was the recognised leader. At New Year time the conduct of the defendants and others of their party was directed against Mr. Stevenson, and on January 1 passers-by noticed an effigy propped up against an outhouse that had been carried to the hall site. The effigy was most offensive in its make-up, and there was no doubt that it was intended to be that of Mr. Stevenson, because it emphasised a disability under which he suffered. On the following day the effigy was burnt on the beach by several weirdly masked men, among whom the three defendants were identified.
Mr. Hanlon (for the defendants): Who said they were?
The Sub-Inspector (acidly) I'm conducting this case, Mr. Hanlon, and will bring evidence bearing on the question of identification later on. "I submit, sir," went on Mr. Fraser, turning to his Worship, "that this cannot be allowed to continue. Mr. Stevenson is entitled to protection from this insulting and offensive behavior, and I ask the Court to inflict the full penalty. The men had no lawful excuse for wearing the disguises."
His Worship: You allege that a breach of the peace actually did occur?
The Sub-Inspector: I contend, sir, that if there had been enough of Mr. Stevenson's followers present at the time of the mock funeral a serious breach of the peace would undoubtedly have taken place. Even at present the feeling is so acute that one word out of place would set the place aflame and create a serious disturbance.
"I would draw the Court's attention to this offensively-worded placard which had been posted up in prominent places for everyone to see." It read:
SOUVENIRS OF BRIGHTON. Visitors may purchase small caskets of ashes from the funeral pyre of the late "Micky Stiffimsoon." Proceeds In aid of the funds for building "Domain Hall." — Q. Goorly, undertaker.
His Worship: A weird kind of humor.
A MOCK FUNERAL. Henry Alexander Bush, laborer, said that at about 7 p.m. on January 2 he saw what he took to be a mock funeral come round Whitson's corner and go as far as Mitchell's store, where a halt was called. There were several masked men in the procession, and four of them were carrying a stretcher with an effigy on it. While the procession was halted, a man named Macassey came along and asked that the stretcher be raised so that a photograph might be taken. "All the time one of the men was mumbling something I did not understand, and the others muttered 'Amen! Amen!'" Witness recognised the three defendants as being members of the masked party. Whitson was wearing a veil.
Mr. Hanlon: The sandflies were troublesome. (Laughter.)
Witness went on to say that the procession later wended its way down to the beach, where Millier, who had the name "Canon Evil" chalked on his back, told the 60 or 70 onlookers that the poor chap had caught a chill and that had been the death of him. The "undertaker" was then requested to carry out his duty, which he did by saying: "Dust to dust, ashes to ashes." The effigy was then liberally soaked with a black fluid, and as the men had some difficulty in getting it to burn, Mr. Macassey helped them with matches. While the effigy was burning Whitson remarked that it was a strange thing that the smoke was going right over Micky's house.
Mr. Hanlon: Who Is Micky?
Witness: Well, that is the name by which Mr. Stevenson is generally known. Witness said there was no doubt in his mind that the effigy was supposed to represent Mr. Stevenson. "I felt inclined to rush the men and tear the masks off them, but there weren't enough of my mates to help me."
Mr. Hanlon: You live at Brighton?
Witness: I think so.
Mr. Hanlon: Oh, you only think so!
Witness: Well. I do, and have been there about 12 years.
Mr. Hanlon: That's better. I'm glad to see your knowledge is improving. Now, you've had a talk with Stevenson over this case, and he impressed on you the fact that when you were in Court you were not to forget to mention that you felt inclined to rush in and unmask these men. Isn't that so?
Witness: No.
Mr. Hanlon: You said you didn't have enough mates to rush these men. How many did you want with you?
Witness: Oh, man to man.
Mr. Hanlon: There was nothing in the nature of a disturbance at the beach?
Witness: No.
Mr. Hanlon: Of course not. The fun was just as harmless as that indulged in by the students in their capping processions.
The Sub-Inspector: Those processions have been stopped in Auckland.
Mr. Hanlon (pompously): But Auckland is so very different, you know.
In answer to a further question, witness admitted that there had been a meeting of Mr. Stevenson's supporters at the latter's house on the Wednesday previous to the hearing of the case.
Mr. Hanlon: And it was arranged what you should say in Court?
Witness: Yes.
Mr. Hanlon: Ah!
Witness: We were only told to tell the truth.
Mr. Hanlon: Mr. Stevenson merely struck a dramatic attitude and told you (sotto voce) to tell nothing but the truth. I want you to tell the Court what really did happen there. You were there some time; weren't you asked to have a drink or anything like that?
Witness: Well, we talked on private matters too, but so far as the case is concerned we were only told to tell the truth.
Mr. Hanlon: That's what I'm trying to get you to do.
Witness: Well, what about it? That's what I'm giving you. I'm no particular friend of Stevenson.
HULLOA, CANON EVIL! James Peter Jones, a farmer from the district, gave evidence on similar lines. "After the burning of the effigy I went up to Millier and said, 'Hulloa, Canon Evil, how 'are you? Do you think it will be hotter in the next place?'"
Mr. Hanlon: The next place. That's Taieri Mouth, isn't it? (Laughter.)
Witness went on to say that there was absolutely no doubt in his mind that the effigy was meant for Mr. Stevenson, and he reckoned the men had gone too far altogether.
Mr. Hanlon: It's hard to say which is the Government and which is the Opposition in this case. I understand Mr. Stevenson is chairman of the Domain Board. Are there any prohibition movements or church guilds out there?
Witness: Some of these men sing in a church choir.
Mr. Hanlon: And now you want to put them in gaol! About this secret conclave at Stevenson's house. What did he say while you were there?
Witness: We discussed the case. The main thing talked about was how we were going to get into town on the day the case was being heard.
Mr. Hanlon: When \you saw these men indulging in this bit of harmless fun did you have a nasty feeling in your breast that you would like to tear the masks from them in the presence of the multitude?
Witness: Yes. I didn't like religion being brought into it. Otherwise I was neutral.
Mr. Hanlon: You couldn't identify Birtles?
Witness: No.
Mr. Hanlon: He's your cousin, isn't he?
Witness: Yes. (Laughter.)
Mr. Hanlon: That will do me. Thanks.
William Jones, a brother of the previous witness, said he was annoyed at the procession because Stevenson was a cripple. "If the effigy had been one of me there would have been something doing."
Mr. Hanlon: Of course there would. You would have consulted your solicitor; you must never forget him, you know. Now, about this memorable meeting on Wednesday, wasn't it in the nature of a dress rehearsal? Didn't Stevenson impress on you that you should remember that you had a feeling of resentment at the sight?
Witness: Yes.
Mr. Hanlon: Now we're getting on fine. You can swear to Whitson and Millier as having been among the "klansmen"; what about Birtles?
Witness: I couldn't swear on oath that he was there.
Mr. Hanlon: How different it might have been if he hadn't been your cousin. (Laughter.)
William Thomson, law clerk, said that in the procession were several boys who were beating kerosene tins and walking behind the "bier." It may have been the noise made by the boys that attracted the people to the beach, where "Canon Evil" announced the fact that they were assembled to witness the cremation of "Micky Stiffimsoon." whose request it was that he should so be disposed of in order that no pollution should lie about the beach. The "Canon" also told the onlookers that "Micky" had come into the district in rags, and he invited them to look at him now, evidently referring to a bag with the word "Loot" written on it, and which was tied to the "corpse." "Any person of average intelligence." said witness, "could tell who the effigy was meant for, because the boots were placed on the wrong feet in order to emphasise Mr. Stevenson's deformity."
Mr. Hanlon: Were you at the meeting on Wednesday?
Witness: No. The only time I discussed the incident with Mr Stevenson was about a week after it occurred.
Mr. Hanlon: There was nothing more in this bit of fun than there usually is in the students' procession?
"AN UNDERCURRENT OP MALICE."
Witness: There seemed to be an undercurrent of malice. The men were very serious.
Mr. Hanlon: Well, isn't that what is expected from people at a funeral — unless they go for the ride? (Laughter.)
Witness concluded by saying that he knew there was bitterness between the parties led by Mr. Stevenson and Mr. Whitson respectively.
Herbert William Ernest Hobbs, Arthur Braid, and Thomas Braid also gave evidence, but it shed no new light on the case. The answer of the last-named to a question concerning his occupation caused a smile to ripple round the Court. "I have several," he said, "but just then I was a green grocer."
William Thomas Connor said that in the smaller of two placards that had been displayed in the district, there was a reference to the "connerstone" of the Domain Hall. This he thought was a jibe at himself, and so he had taken it down from the prominent place in which it had been hung.
The Sub-Inspector: Mr. Stevenson is chairman of the Domain Board. Can he dominate everyone in Brighton?
His Worship: I hardly think it necessary to go into the civic affairs of the place.
Duncan McIntosh was not in the district at the time the incident occurred, but he know the feeling that existed among the people.
Mr. Hanlon: I object to that. I could bring three-quarters of the people from Brighton to say the opposite of what the witness would say.
His Worship: I don't feel disposed to extend you that privilege, Mr. Hanlon.
Why Arthur Joseph Allen was called no one seemed to know. He had seen neither the procession nor the placards; in fact, he knew nothing whatever of the incident.
Constable Hamilton said he had gone to Brighton to investigate the burning of the effigy and the placing of an outhouse on the hall site.
Mr. Hanlon: Call it a sentry box. (Laughter.)
Continuing, witness said that Birtles admitted having helped with the removal of the outhouse and having taken part in the procession. Whitson said that if there was any trouble his money was up and his lawyer was engaged. Millier admitted that he took part in the procession, but considered it was only a joke.
NO CRIMINAL INTENT. Mr. Hanlon contended that in the second charge, that of being idle and disorderly persons, in that they had articles of disguise without lawful excuse, the case really rested on the words "without lawful excuse." In a somewhat similar case, Carter v. Reaper, heard in the Victorian Courts Mr. Justice Hood had ruled that it was only necessary for the defence to show that there was no criminal intent, and counsel submitted there was no such element in the present case. Dealing with the charge of using insulting behavior with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, Mr. Hanlon said the men had decided to have a little harmless fun at the expense of Mr. Stevenson, who was very unpopular in the district. "This man has got it into his head that he is the Czar of Brighton, and thinks he can do anything he likes because he's got money. Some of the people can do nothing without meeting with strong opposition from him." Wasn't it rather remarkable that Stevenson himself had not given evidence? asked Mr. Hanlon. It was wicked to bring a charge of being idle and disorderly against these men, and if Stevenson thought they were not justified in doing what they did he had his remedy in a civil action. Stevenson was an astute, cunning gentleman, and finding it necessary to get evidence to the effect that some onlookers had a feeling of resentment he called a meeting of his followers and schooled up four of them to say that if their numbers had been greater there might have been a riot. Was there ever so much shuffling among witnesses? It might have been wrong for the defendants to do what they did, but if so, then it was wrong for the students to do what they did each year. "Why," said Mr. Hanlon, "I see several gentlemen in Court who have been impersonated by the students, and they have taken it for what it was meant to be — a joke."
His Worship: As Mr. Hanlon has pointed out, the Victorian case shows, so far as the charge of being idle and disorderly is concerned, that it is sufficient for the defence to show that there was no criminal intent in the act. In the present case it would only be by a greater stretch of imagination than I am capable of that criminal purpose could be assumed. Those charges are, therefore, dismissed. In the charge dealing with insulting behavior, intention on the part of defendants to create a breach of the peace must be shown. The evidence showed that defendants had held a certain person up to ridicule, but there was no attempt to show that this was done in the presence of a number of Mr. Stevenson's partisans, or that it was done in such a way that there was even a reasonable possibility of a breach of the peace being occasioned. Some of the witnesses gave halfhearted evidence concerning the indignation they felt, but not much importance can be attached to that. The conduct of the defendants was more that of the university students, who at times are granted a license to do foolish things. The burning of effigies of unpopular persons is what one expects from boys, not from men, and if there is feeling between Stevenson and others, the latter adopted childish methods to criticise the action of their opponent. For the indignity which he apparently thinks he has suffered Mr. Stevenson has his remedy in another Court, but the police cannot succeed under the Police Offences Act. These charges, also, will be dismissed. -NZ Truth, 22/3/1924.
OBITUARY
M. M. STEVENSON
The Dunedin district has lost the services of a man who made a business out of nothing, who fought his way with undaunted determination in the face of peculiar disadvantages, and in his progress upward always managed to find time for community service. Such a description of Mr Malcolm Stevenson, who died about 5 p.m. yesterday at his summer residence in Brighton, will not be challenged by any of the many who knew him. The passing does not come as a surprise. For the past two years Mr Stevenson suffered more or less from heart trouble, but he was not actually laid up for long, taking to his bed no earlier than Saturday last.
Mr Stevenson was born at Otokia on November 28, 1868, the son of Mr John Stevenson, an early settler on the Taieri, and obtained his education at the Otokia School. When but a lad he went to hard work near at hand, and he was only eighteen years of age when he suffered from a severe accident on a wood contract job, having both his feet run over by a grading machine, thereby sustaining an injury that crippled him for life and would have kept a less determined man on the shelf. It is remembered, as an example of endurance and will power, that after Mr Stevenson was able to get about he took a farming contract and worked in the rear of a binder before he could stand on his feet, crawling about the field.
One of his early important contracts was for the Taieri County Council to spread the first metal on the South Taieri roads. In 1900 he came to Dunedin and camped, with his six drays and horses, on the reclaimed ground just south of the town. He later shifted to Pelichet Bay, and secured important contracts in connection with the drainage system then inaugurated. In 1904 he was elected to represent the Otokia riding on the Taieri County Council and served on the Finance and Electric Power Committees of that body, playing a leading part in drafting the agreement whereby the City Council was given permission to carry power across the Taieri plain. In 1906 he retired from the Taieri County Council and became connected with the Otago Hospital Board, which then consisted of four separate bodies — the Hospital Board, the Hospital Trustees, the Charitable Aid Board, and the Benevolent Trustees. In 1908 he was appointed chairman of the Hospital Board, a position which he retained until 1910, when the four bodies were amalgamated in to what is now the Otago Hospital Board. His work in connection with the affairs of this organisation was marked by characteristic energy, and to him was largely due the establishment of the Fever Hospital at what was then Lake Logan. In 1929 he again contested a seat on the Taieri County Council, and was elected as member for the Kaikorai Riding, remaining on the council in that capacity ever since.
Brighton is deeply indebted to Mr Stevenson for his untiring efforts to improve that district. For several years he was a member of the executive of the Otago Motor Club and chairman of its Roading Committee, and in that capacity he continuously urged the advisability of providing free parking at Brighton for motor cars. He was appointed chairman of the Brighton Domain Board in 1922, a position which he held up to the time of his death. One of the first improvements in which he took part was the filling in of the depression in the centre of the domain, a work which has made it possible to equip the domain with a football ground, a cricket ground, and a hockey ground. He was instrumental in having the Brighton Hall built in 1924, and the coming of electric power to the district in the following year was also largely due to his efforts. The forming of a footpath from end to end of Brighton was another work in which he took a leading part.
When the Dunedin Unemployment Committee was formed Mr Stevenson was appointed a member. His most useful work in this connection was as a member of the sub-committee which supervises relief work on farms. He gave much valuable time to the inspection work which is an important phase of the committee’s activities, his expert knowledge in managing a business that at one time used 140 horses being of special value. Mr Stevenson was a prominent member of the Master Carriers’ Association, and travelled to Wellington on several occasions as that body’s representative at conferences. For a term he occupied a seat on the Executive Committee of the Otago Employers’ Association. He was interested in Freemasonry, and was for many years a member of Lodge Celtic. Mr Stevenson married a daughter of the Rev. McCosh Smith, of Dunedin, and that lady survives her husband. There are three sons — Messrs James Stevenson, Callum Stevenson, and Stuart Stevenson — all of whom reside in Dunedin. The funeral will take place to-morrow afternoon at Anderson’s Bay. -Evening Star, 1/2/1933.
Andersons Bay Cemetery, Dunedin. DCC photo.
