People ex rel. Shannon v. Garstenfeld — 156 N.Y.S. 991

Majority

p. 991

(92 Misc. Rep. 388)

PEOPLE ex rel. SHANNON v. GARSTENFELD.

(Kings County Court.

November, 1915.)

Headnote

Disorderly Conduct <s=1—Oeeicnse—What Constitutes.

Where defendant publicly greeted another by placing the end of his thumb against the tip of his nose, at the same time extending and wiggling the fingers of his hand, and it appeared that he had committed the same offense toward the complaining witness on previous occasions, thus indicating a determination to annoy him to the limit of patient endurance, his conviction of disorderly conduct was authorized.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Disorderly Conduct, Cent. Dig. §§ 1-8; Dec. Dig. <®==5l.]

<§x=^For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes

Appeal from Magistrate’s Court.

Proceeding by the People, on the relation of John Shannon, against Morris Garstenfeld. Judgment of conviction, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Berlin 8z Klein, of Brooklyn, for appellant.

James C. Cropsey, Dist. Atty., of Brooklyn (Ralph E. Hemstreet and Harry G. Anderson, both of Brooklyn, on the brief), for respondent.

Is it disorderly conduct for one individual to publicly greet another by placing the end of his thumb against the tip of his nose, at the same time extending and wiggling the fingers of his hand? That momentous question is involved in this appeal. What meaning is intended to be conveyed by the above-described pantomine? Is it a friendly or an unfriendly action; a compliment or an insult? Is it a direct invitation to fight, or is it likely to provoke a fight?

Dr. Holmes, that delightful wit and philosopher of a former generation, remarked in his “Autocrat of the Breakfast Table” that “there are a good many symbols even that are more expressive than words.” In the Knickerbocker History oí New York we read that, when William the Testy sent an expedition to treat with the belligerent powers of Rensselaerstein, the ambassador who accompanied the expedition demanded the surrender of the fortress. “In reply the wachtmcester

p. 992

applied the thumb of his right hand to the end of his nose, and the thumb of his left hand to the little finger of the right, and, spreading each hand like a fan, made an aerial flourish with his fingers.” No breach of the peace ensued, but this was apparently owing to the fact that the ambassador was ignorant of the significance of the wachtmeester’s salutation. It is, however, recorded that the practice became widespread, and that up to the author’s day the thumb to the nose and the fingers in the air is apt to be a reply made by tenants to their landlord when called upon for any long arrears of rent.

The practice still persists, and is not limited to tenants who are indisposed to pay their rent. Among boys it serves as a harmless vent for injured feelings, which lack the proper vocabulary to relieve themselves through audible speech. But when boys become men they should “put away childish things.” In the case at bar the circumstances attending the enactment of the nasal and digit drama aforesaid tend to show a design to engender strife. Moreover, the defendant had committed the same offense toward the complaining witness on previous occasions, thus indicating a determination to annoy him to the limit of patient endurance. My answer to the question stated at the beginning of this opinion is: It depends on circumstances. And under the circumstances disclosed I am satisfied the magistrate was fully warranted in reaching the conclusion he arrived at, and I therefore affirm the conviction.

Judgment affirmed.