Rough language earned a harsh sentence back in the day

Use of obscene language earned an appointment at the courthouse.

Kevin Page's article in Tuesday's Chronicle — "Enough to make a crayfish blush" — about the expletives and abuse he heard in a row in his fish-and-chip shop brings to mind (for those of us on the shady side of retirement), a time when individuals indulging in such behaviour were charged with using obscene language.

In colonial times, the Police Offences Act stated: "Any person who ... uses any profane, indecent or obscene language in any public place .. shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment with hard labour for any time not exceeding one year."

The Wanganui Herald (January 30, 1885) was confident that — based on convictions already secured (fines not optional) — "our streets and public places will be freed from the hideous obscenity of language which now makes them at times quite unfit for ladies and children to pass through".

The Herald also noted that magistrates had powers to commit particularly gross acts to a higher court, "where the offender, in addition to imprisonment, may be ordered to be once or twice privately flogged to the extent of twenty-five lashes. The 'cat' is the only cure for bad cases of obscenity".

The result, predicted the Herald, would be "to purify the moral atmosphere of the public streets", although the "fairer sex" — whom the act was designed to protect — were sometimes the worst offenders, and those convicted discovered custodial sentences applied equally to them as to the "sterner sex".

It was not uncommon for signs such as the following to be displayed prominently in public places: "Gentlemen, while occupying this room, are respectfully requested to refrain from using profane or improper language. Ladies are in the next room."

Judging from the number of "ladies" before the courts on profanity charges, it's plain that similar signs aimed at protecting the tender ears of gentlemen should also have been displayed.

One such regular offender was Fanny Preston, "a notorious woman of ill-fame", (Chronicle, May 12, 1883).

She was charged, along with George Chamberlain, "a well-known horsey character", with using abusive language. Fanny's offence was described as "dropping the flowers of speech".

Another was Nellie Corney, who was overheard by a police officer "using some particularly choice language between the hours of one o'clock and two o'clock in the morning". (Three days' imprisonment with hard labour).

But it became apparent that the Police Offences Act was not producing the desired result, according to the Herald (January 18, 1902).

"The prevalence of this offensive habit all over the colony is unfortunately not unknown in Wanganui, but it is rarely that the offenders are brought to book. Women and children have their ears constantly assailed in the streets by foul language from a lot of blackguards who think it necessary to punctuate their conversation with blasphemous and obscene words.

"A few convictions and salutary sentences would go a long way towards the abatement of the evil, as the offenders would find a sojourn in gaol anything but a picnic ... It would act as an effective warning and purify the air very considerably."

But lest an astute defence lawyer spot a loophole in the law regarding obscenity as it stood back then, our presiding Resident Magistrate moved swiftly on one occasion to prevent such advantage being taken.

The Herald (September 15, 1883) records: "A peculiar suggestion was made by His Worship at the court this morning, in regard to the informations laid in connection with the use of indecent language.

"He drew attention to the fact that at present a defendant was charged with 'unlawfully' making use of obscene language, from which some people might draw the inference that under some conditions the offence might be lawful.

"Such a happy delusion, however, must be dispelled, as the use of the language under any circumstances is an offence, and His Worship directed the omission of the word 'unlawful' from all future informations."

It would be interesting to know whether the now rampant practice of "dropping the flowers of speech" in public places still qualifies as a transgression under the Police Offences Act.

■ Murray Crawford is a Whanganui author with an interest in local history. Newspaper references sourced from Papers Past: National Library of New Zealand.