RICHARDSON ASSAULT CHARGES.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVI, Issue 75, 29 March 1905, Page 3

RICHARDSON ASSAULT CHARGES.

■ » JHE CASE AGAINST THE MAYOR. INFORMATION DISMISSED WITH COSTS. COMPLAINANT A TRESPASSER. The charge of assault preferred by _r. William- Richardson against the Hon. E. Mitchelson, Mayor of Auckland, was concluded yesterday afternoon, when Mr. S. E. McCarthy, S.M., gave his decision, the information being dismissed with costs against the complainant. j THE DEFENDANT'S WITNESSES. The Rev. Robert Somerville, one of the witnesses called on behalf of Mr. Mitchelson, continued his evidence after we went to press, being cross-examined by the complainant. Mr. Richardson: Don't you think it would have been more reasonable if the Mayor had led mc by the arm off the platform, and a3ked the police to take charge of mc until the mover of the motion had been heard?— Witness: I don't think, from the spirit you displayed on the platform, that you would have submitted to being led by the arm. Would there not have been great danger if I had come to the floor?— You caught the bannister. Suppose I had failed, and been killed? —You would not have been killed. In reply to a repetition of previous questions, the witness said it was the duty of every loyal and obedient citizen to obey the authorities. Mr. Richardson: You have been holding up to admiration all your life men who defied all the existing authorities— John Knox, for instance. Witness: We'll leave John Knox where he is. Mr. Richardson: I find you, a minister of religion, standing in that box apologising for brute force! - Witness: The Mayor acted under great provocation. You should have had sufficient respect for the chair, and because you did not obey, hence the result. Then you would, when told to go down, have obeyed like a spaniel, and you would not have maintained your rights?—l would obey the chair. Mr. Richardson: Fortunately some men in Auckland are not built your way. PREMIER'S PRIVATE SECRETARY. James Frank Andrews, private secretary to the Premier, said he was on the platform during Mr. Seddon's meeting. At the conclusion of the address Mr. Richardson came up and said he had an amendment to move. At that time Mr. Coleman was endeavouring to speak. The uproar commenced almost simultaneously with the complainant's arrival on the platform. Witness only saw Mr. Richardson pushed off once. The witness was subjected to some cross-questioning by Mr. Richardson, who, when he found that Mr. Andrews had not observed some of the features of the incident, declared that if the witness' perceptive faculties were equal to vis notes, his notes were not much good. "How many private secretaries has the Premier?" asked the complainant. "That's nothing to do with the case," retorted the witness, whose opinion was backed by the magistrate. "HIS WORD OF HONOUR." Thomas Harle Giles stated that he was one of the conveners of the meeting. Mr. Richardson came under his notice at the commencement, when he endeavoured to enter the hall at the door reserved for persons with tickets. He wished to pass without a ticket, and was told to enter by the entrance open to the general public. Then he said he was present in a journalistic capacity. Witness replied: "Our experience of you at previous meetings is that you have disturbed tltem, and we have no proof that you are not going to do the same thing now.'' Mr. Richardson replied that he was not aware that he had done so, and witness reminded him that at Sir Joseph Ward's meeting he had interjected offensively. Mr. Richardson replied: 'I'll give you my word of honour that I won't do it this time if you'll let mc in." He put out his hand, and witness, remarking, "That's a bargain, Richardson/ shook hands with him. Mr. Nerheny and witness then escorted the complainant to 'the press table. When the announcement respecting questions was made. Mr. Richardson called out "Ho" at the top of his voice. When Mr. Coleman went towards the platform he was closely followed by Mr. Richardson, and when the resolution was being read, the complainant had reached the top of the platform steps. His appearance was the signal for a general outburst of feeling. Mr. Giles' description of what followed agreed with that of the previous witnesses for the defence. To Mr. Richardson: He was the honorary secretary of the Auckland Liberal and Labour Federation. He would say that a person had every right to move an amendment at a meeting.of that character. To go to the Mayor while Mr. Coleman was speaking and intimate that I was going to move an amendment was not a very serious class of disorder, was it?— It caused serious disorder. Why should I be so obnoxious that I am not to exercise rights that any other man has?— Your past conduct, and the way in which yon have behaved at other meetings, is a very good answer to the question. You have been in the habit of gagging public feeling by disallowing questions? —•I am not aware of itrMr. Giles said he was not aware that at a previous meeting the Premier had promised to answer questions, but, with the chairman, Mr. A. Kidd, had broken faith. Mr. Richardson: Would it have been Within my province in moving, early in the meeting, that the chairman's ruling °n the subject of questions be not agreed with?—-It would have been a "each of your word of honour. I don't think nave \ xeri within the province of any well-conducted man. Unee started, you could not have oecii stopped." declared the witness in try t0 ? notlier question. iou might gft a chairman who would ■« stimmarilv like Mr. Mitchelson,"'rePued ; Mr. Richardson. A good job we had him," said the * Kes s, with some emphasis. Richardson: I kept my word to you except on one occasion. Witness: Yes. I rather admired you. Mr Richardson smilingly assured the that he would have admired km more had he known what it cost aim. . John Wilson was the last witness ™ le( l ,for the defence. He described ™c incident, and said the minimum «?ount of force was used to remove Mr ~fer dson from the platform. "id.you ever see anything more cowardly?" asked the complainant. *°v as ked for it and you got it," replied Mr Wilson, who explained that p.. Provocation arose through Mr disobedience to the chairnan. Alr : Richardson's eross-esamination,

While not eliciting much information, Sf OV 7 v a few shar P Passages of words between the witness and his questioner. The witness remarked that he was a iamy good judge of character by externals. J "Oh, are you! You're _ regular genius a kind of thought-reader,- rem « ?* c complainant. "Is this supposed to be funny?" said the witness calmly. 7 ° U are ver y clever," replied Mx Richardson with such emphasis that «xv^ >ectators were S reatl y amused. Why, you are as docile as a lamb," declared Mr Richardson subsequently, when the witness said he would have left the hall bad the chairman ordered mm. "Just what one of your witnesses said aßftut you yesterday," readily replied Mr Wilson, referring to a gentleman's description of Mr Richardson as M A. lamb being slain." Mr Richardson: "In your inmost heart don't you think I was cruelly treated?" J Witness: "If you want my heart's inmost thoughts, then I don't, think so." "Supposing you had been my son, and had seen mc treated like that, what would you have done?"—"I should have felt very sorry for my father's ijrnorance." (Laughter.) This concluded the evidence. THE DECISION. Mr McCarthy, S.M-, in giving his decision, said that in order to arrive at a right conclusion it was first necessary to consider the law in regard to public meetings. AU gatherings derived the regulations under which they were conducted from their conveners or the promoters of the gathering, and the persona who assembled were in the eyes of the law the mere guests or licensees of those promoters, even although they had paid for admission. Even m the latter case their right to remain depended upon the will of the conveners, who could without assigning a reason request any of the persons assembled to withdraw. If they refused to do what they were bound to do by law they became trespassers. This "had been the settled law of England and therefore of New Zealand for a great many yearsThis particular gathering was a public one presided over by a chairman, and as it was of a promiscuous-nature the' duty of preserving order was left very much to the discretion of the chairman, the discretion to be of course exercised in a reasonable manner. After the delivery of the Premier's address Mr Coleman, apparently according to arrangement, ascended the platform to propose a motion. Whilst he was attempting the delivery of his speech Mr Richardson also ascended the platform, and there was immediately a tumult which continued until the end of the meeting. It was really unimportant for the purpose of his decision to say whether that tumult was caused by approval or disapproval of his appearance. The result was the same—the tumult was created, and Mr Coleman could not be heard. Mr Mitchelson at this juncture interfered, and requested Mr. Richardson to leave >the platform, because he considered%is presence there was the cause of the disorder. Whether this opinion was a correct one or not was also immaterial if it was held by him in a bonafide way. When Mr Richardson was requested to leave the platform he refused to do so, and in his (the magistrate's) opinion the order that the chairman gave was a reasonable one, and, having been disobeyed by Mr Richardson, the latter became from that moment a trespasser. He could not only have been removed from the platform, but ejected from the hall and placed under arrest. After being removed from ■ the platform he returned, and was again removed. He was prevented from ascending the platform on a third occasion, but was subsequently beckoned to the platform by Mr Mitchelson, who when the complainant could not move his amendment read it to the meeting for him. This action showed that Mr Mitchelson was bona fide throughout the whole matter, and that his explanation Was the correct one. that he asked Mr Richardson to leave the platform to preserve order while the motion was being put. Mr Richardson elected to defy the ruling of the chair, and as he became contumacious from that moment he was a trespasser. For this reason he thought the information must be dismissed, and the informant ordered to pay the defendant's costs. -He fixed the solicitor's fee at three guineas. The expenses allowed to the six witnesses called for the defence amounted to £ 5 8/, bringing .the total costs up to £8 11/.