RIOT TRIAL.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 124, 27 May 1932, Page 3

RIOT TRIAL.

FINAL STAGE. JUDGE'S SUMMING UP. GRAVITY OF CASE EMPHASISES TASK BEFORE THE JURY. The trial of the 14 men who are accused of taking part in the rioting in the city on the night of April 14 entered upon its final stage at the Supreme Court to-day. The accused arc: Ocorgc Joseph Silver, Englishman, labourer, aged 32; Georse Dovereaux, Irishman, labourer, 38; Oswald Bourbeau, Canadian, waterside worker, 51; John Sharpe, Scotsman, miner, 3(i; Simeon Elari, Australian, labourer, 21; Leo Martinovich, New V.c.wlander, motor driver, IS; Harold Robertson, New Zealander, labourer, 19; John Hubert Edwards, Englishman, salesman, 38; Clifford John Dudson, New Zealander, labourer, 31; James William Rac Simpson, Scotsman, labourer, 32; Mate Dragovich, Dalmatian, labourer, 33; John William McCorkiridale, New Zealander, miner, 37; William John Budd, Englishman, seaman, 35; and Albert William Searlcs, Englishman, seaman, 20.

Two charges are preferred, namely, that in company witli one James Henry Edwards and other persons unknown, they did take part in a riot in Queen Street, and also that they did take part in an unlawful assembly.

The cases are being heard together. Eleven of the accused are represented by one counsel, Sharpe and Martinovich by another, and Searles by a third. Each of the accused pleads not guilty. Defending Counsel's Addresses. The case for the defence was finished yesterday, the last witness being Dr. Buxton, administrator of St. Patrick's Cathedral, who gave evidence of character on behalf of Searles, who, he said, had impressed him as an honest man. He did not judge him to be a man who would lightly disregard a solemn oath.

Addressing the jury for 11 of the accused, counsel submitted that there was nothing to link up any of them with window smashing or other acts of violence. There was great difficulty in identifying men clearly under the*conditions which obtained, and there was a grave danger of men being blamed for the acts of others.

Counsel for Sharpe and Martinovich said this was not a religious, a social, or an industrial riot. The meeting in the Town Hall was a perfectly just and lawful assembly, and there was no evidence whatever to associate those who took part in it with the looting and violence that followed. Sharpe had an honourable record of war service and an excellent character, and was the last typo of person to bo 'guilty of such incitement to violence as had been suggested. The evidence against Martinovich, too, was nebulous 'and unsatisfactory, and this prisoner was another man of excellent character and standing.

Counsel for Searles suggested that a mistake in identity had been made on account of the conspicuous, light-coloured clothing he was wearing. The jury would have seen, from the photograph produced, that there were other persons in the crowd who wore white shirts and flannel trousers, and it was quite possible that an honest mistake had been made. Searles had given evidence in a satisfactory and straightforward manner, and if the jury had any doubt about the case it was their duty to acquit him. J

In addressing the jury the Crown Irosceutor said that as tho jurv had listened for some days to tho evidence in detail he did not intend to make a lengthy address. "I do not propose to go through the evidence of rioting or the fact that there was riotinw. It is very clear that on the night of April 14 there was a large concourse of people, not hundreds, but thousands, and it is also clear it was intended to rush the Town Hall. People in the neighbourhood were afraid. It is clear also that on the way to the Town Hall there was incitement. You have evidence of Edwards and Devereaux shouting, 'Shall we fight?' and it has been shown that long before the Town Hall was reached stones were thrown and windows broken. You also have evidence of the words used by Bourbeau, who said that when a fight did come the police would find the demonstrators well armed, and better armed than the police."

There was abundant proof of the intentions of a certain part of the <rcwd long before the meeting in the Town Hall began. As certain premises in Queen Street were being passed by the procession there were cries? of "All right, you . We'll get you later." On the platform of the Town Hail the morning after the riot there was fo'ind a readymade baton, complete with a sling. This weapon was obviously taken into the hall before the meeting began. Evidence of Premeditation. "Now take this dastardly missile," said counsel, holding up a heavy block of iron, rusted with age, which was evidently at one time the cap of a hydrant. "This was thrown from inside the hall at Constable Cook, and smashed his face in. We have evidence that no such article would be left lying about inside the hall, and the obvious inference is that it was taken in by some miscreant, who meant to use it when opportunity presented. These and other facts show that the trouble was premeditated, in fact prepared for."

Tho Crown Prosecutor went on to examine the evidence against each of tho accused. It was fully proved, he said, that Silver and Devereaux took an active part in the rowdy.demonstration made by a section of the procession on its way up Queen Street, and there was clear evidence that they were arrested red-handed during the rioting. Bourbeau, who was known to have addressed meetings in terms which could only ho an incitement to violence, had evidently some knowledge of what was going to happen, as was proved by his conversation with Constable Wilson on tho morning of the riot. "Sharpe was heard to shout to the rioters, "Keep it going, boys," and later, in Queen Street, was heard to give the command "About turn," and led a party of looters further up the street. This had been disputed by the defence, but if was significant that their own witnesses admitted that Sharpe was where he was said to have been. He was a man with a distinct accent, and his early military training made it very likely that he would use such a phrase as had been alleged. "Novel Form of Defence."

Regarding Martinovich, counsel said it was somewhat singular that a witness for the defence to whom special reference had been made was not, after all, called. This witness was in a procession the previous day and her evidence might have been interesting. The testimony against accused was clear and *SJ nite, and it was liardly likely that,

being at the front of the crowd, he could be confused with anyone else. A somewhat novel form of defence had been adopted in the case of Searles, on whos* behalf it had been stated that he was not the tvpe of man who would be likely to disregard an oath. Evidence such" as this could hardly be enough to discount that of four police oilicers, each of whom saw accused at a separate tune and had no doubt whatever that he was the man. The jury must ask themselves seriously whether four separate ofiieers would be likely to say deliberately what was untrue.

The foreman of the jury asked whether the piece of paling which Searlcs was said to have held in his hand had been produced. To this the Crown Prosecutor replied that in the face of the surgini mob which came down Queen Street it was all the police could do to secure the man, and not necessarily the weapon. Tribute to Police.

In conclusion, the Crown Prosecutor said all criminal trials were serious, but the present was one of unusual gravity. Fortunately in this country mob violence had very rarely broken out. One of the counsel'for the defence had referred to the Gordon riots, in which 300 people were' killed or injured. That served to emphasise the gravity of rioting and mob violence and its seriousners for the community as a whole. He asked the jury to give the cases their most serious consideration. If they came to the conclusion that any one" of the men was associated with the riot, it was their bounden duty to say so.

Finally, counsel paid a high tribute to tlie courage and devotion to duty which had been shown by the police. When it was remembered that ten men stemmed the first main rush, and that, in all, a body of only 30 was able to control the forces against them, which so hopelessly outnumbered them, a tribute of admiration was duo for an exhibition of grim determination and courage. Judge's Summing Up. Mr. Justice Herdman then summed up. During this week, he said, the jury had been engaged in considering no mere trivial criminal ease, but one of the most serious, importance. We were living in what had always been considered a law-abiding country.

Tho crime of rioting had rarely been committed in New Zealand. Years ago there were disturbances on tho West Coast, and there was sonic trouble in 1912 and 1913, but there had probably been no event which had disturbed the public peace to such an extent as the ovents of April 14 in Auckland.

After telling the jury that they need not attach a great deal of importance to the subsidiary charge of unlawful assembly provided they determined on the first charge, his Honor pointed out that it was the duty of the Crown to prove the case against each and every man. The jury must then decide firstly, did a riot take place, and secondly, did these men, or any of them, take part in it. Fourteen men were'charged together, but the jury could decide whether all were guilty or not, or whether the separate members of the 14 were guilty or' not. The jury must be satisfied that there was an unlawful assembly, that the accused had a common purpose, that a riot took place, and that accused participated in it. Question of Purpose. It might be quite true that the original purpose of the procession was to 'impress upon the public the needs of the unemployed, but another purpose might have developed subsequently. It was possible that when some of those who took part in tho procession arrived at tho Town Hall and found the doors closed, they became determined to force their way in. Also there was the furthere possibility that when they assentbled for the beginning of the procession they had already an unlawful purpose and intent. The rioting did in fact take place,' and a serious attempt was made to force a way into the hall. One trembled to think what might have happened if tho mob had forced its way into the hall, where there were many women and children.

Dealing with the legal aspect of the question, his Honor pointed out that there were many ways in which a man might render himself liable to a charge of rioting. It might be done by violence, by stone throwing, or by encouraging others to a breach of the peace. If all or any of the accused were proved to have taken part in the disturbance or even to have induced and encouraged others to do so then they were guilty of the offences with which they were charged. If, on the other hand, the jury had any reasonable doubt in any case it was their duty to give the accused the benefit of it. "Let it be remembered," said his Honor, "that the law of this country does not suffer people to obtain rcdrdss of their wrongs by disturbing the public peace." "Solemn and Responsible Duty."

His Honor proceeded to review the evidence against each of the accused. The question of exact time, he said, had been raised in some cases, but the jury must look at this from a common-sense point of view. Was it likely that a police officer would be able to make a note of the exact time an event occurred, or he met a certain person, when the circumstances were such as had been described? The idea was preposterous and ridiculous. His Honor said it was not necessary for the Crown to go to the length of proving that a man had a weapon in his hand, or that he attacked anybody. If he was encouraging others to violence or rushing up and down the street with them, it was sufficient to justify active participation in the rioting.

"You have a solemn and responsible duty to perform," said his Honor, in conclusion. "If you consider the evidence is not sufficient to justify you in finding the accused, or any of them, guilty, you must acquit them. If, on the other hand, you consider the proof sufficient, you have your duty to perform. A very large amount of evidence has been submitted, and your duty is to weigh it carefully, for your responsibility is to the community as a whole, as well as to the accused."

The adjournment was postponed until 1.40 in order to enable his Honor to conclude the summing up. The jury then retired.