ARCHDEACON IN HYDE PARK

CONVICTION QUASHED.

At London Sessions, yesterday, before Sir Robert Wallace, K.C., the appeal was heard of Archdeacon Harris, aged 68, of Rue de l’esplanade, Ixelle, Brussels, against the conviction of the Marlborough-street magistrate, who fined him £5 on a charge of interfering with and annoying persons using Hyde Park.

Mr. Curtis Bennett, K.C., and Mr. Huntly Jenkins appeared for the appellant, and Mr. Travers Humphreys represented the respondent magistrate.

Explaining the action of the police in the case, Mr. Travers Humphreys said on the evening of Aug. 17, shortly after eight o’clock, the archdeacon was in Hyde Park, having got off an omnibus at Marble Arch. He walked towards Hyde Park-corner, and two police officers saw him overtake two women in Broad-path. He apparently joined the women, and the three walked together for some distance. Then the archdeacon turned round and walked back, and the ladies came and made a complaint to the police officers. It might be said it was very unfortunate that people should make complaints to the police and refuse to give further assistance, refusing their names and addresses and leaving the police officers no means of bringing them to the Court. As a result of the complaint the officers kept the archdeacon under close observation. They saw him walk south, and when he had got some distance down they saw him stop in front of a young woman going in the opposite direction. This statement, said Mr. Humphreys, was denied by the appellant. The officers considered from the way the girl stepped aside and turned away that she appeared to be annoyed.

Later, in Rotten-row, he approached a woman going in the opposite direction. The officers saw him look into her face, and she stepped aside and walked off. The archdeacon retraced his steps towards Hyde Park-corner, and overtook another woman, to whom he spoke. The police officers thought it was time to intervene, and went up to the archdeacon, to whom they said: “We have been watching you for some time, and have seen you trying to force your conversation upon two young women.” The archdeacon replied, “I think you have made a mistake. I am only here for a few days. This lady is a friend of mine.” Upon the lady being asked, she said, “I don’t know him. I don’t want anything to do with the matter at all.” The archdeacon was taken to the police-station and charged. He said at that time: “I confess I spoke to two ladies near Grosvenor-gate, and was talking to another when the officers came up. I walked with them a little way and then left them. I don’t see why they should be annoyed.”

Police-constable Gillies gave evidence. It was a rough night, he said, and he and a colleague were standing under a tree for shelter opposite Grosvenor-gate. Cross-examined by Mr. Curtis Bennett, witness said he noticed that the archdeacon had a peculiar walk; he was slightly lame. Police-constable Albert Treagues, who was in Hyde Park with the previous witness, gave corroborative evidence. He said he was sure the man they had under observation was the same man in each instance – the appellant.

Mr. Curtis Bennett, on behalf of the appellant, remarked that the archdeacon was a Cambridge Blue, and for three years played for the football team against Oxford. He later joined the Church and became a chaplain in the Navy. In 1902 he was appointed chaplain to King Edward, and was afterwards appointed chaplain to the present King. He was now in charge of the English Church at Brussels. He had been married 25 years, and had been a devoted husband, as his wife was there to say.

DEFENDANT’S DENIALS.

Giving evidence, Archdeacon Harris said he now resided permanently in Brussels, and was 68 years of age. Referring to his visit to London, he said he made his headquarters at his son’s house, St. Peter’s Vicarage, Vauxhall. On the evening in question he went to see some friends at Maida-vale, and returning entered Hyde Park. Just after he had passed Grosvenor Gate it began to rain heavily, and he turned back. He went on to refer to getting level with two women with an umbrella, and stated that they looked at his gaiters and laughed. Perhaps he spoke first, and said it was a very wet night. One of the women replied that the best place on a wet night was church, and he referred to the cinema at Marble Arch, where Charlie Chaplin was being shown. They then parted.

Mr. Curtis Bennett: Between the time of speaking to those women and going to the corner of Rotten Bow did you get in front of any women, or did you try to stop any women? – “No. I have not the slightest recollection of speaking to anyone – in fact, I am sure I did not.”

Referring to the incident near the kiosk, witness said a woman looked into his face and said, “It is a very wet night,” and added she wondered if he could help her. Witness inquired what help he could give her, and she said she was “hard up.” He did not care to stay there talking to her. and they walked a few yards. He did not doubt she was a woman of the streets. While they were talking a policeman came up, touched him on the shoulder, and took him by the arm. When the policeman asked who the woman was, he confessed he wanted to shield her, thinking she was going to be arrested.

Mr. Curtis Bennett: Did it ever occur to you that you were going to be arrested by those police officers? “No, it did not.” Witness added there was absolutely no truth in the suggestion that he was wilfully annoying and interfering with people in Hyde Park. A number of witnesses were called as to the character and work of the archdeacon.

The magistrates retired for a few moments, and on their return Sir Robert Wallace said the Bench had considered the evidence very carefully, and having regard to what they had heard about the appellant, and what inferences might be drawn otherwise from the evidence in regard to a charge of this kind, they had come to the conclusion that the conviction must be quashed, and the appeal allowed. He personally, and other members of the Bench, believed the appellant had acted unwisely at the time of his arrest. His lordship commented on the perfectly fair way, free from exaggeration, in which the police had given their evidence.