Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

FOUR MEN SENTENCED.

TERMS OF UP TO TWO YEARS. ONE "A CONFIRMED CRIMINAL." ' Oswald Bourbeau, John William McCorkindale, George Budd and Albert William Searles, who were found guilty at the criminal sessions this week of taking part in the riot in Queen Street on April 14, came up for sentence at the ■ Supreme Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Herdman.

Counsel for Bourbeau said that his client was charged in the Magistrate's Court, on April 22, with assaulting Constable Johnstone on the night of the riot. He was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, and had served this term. A charge of inciting to lawlessness at the same time and place was dismissed, on its merits. Counsel submitted that the facts on which Bourbeau had been convicted in the Supreme Court this week were exactly the same as those dealt with in the Magistrate's Court, and the only witness to those facts against him on his trial for rioting was the same Constable Johnstone.

"Notwithstanding any rules of law on the matter, and with all due respect to the authorities on the question, I maintain that this man is being punished twico for substantially the same offence if sentenced now," said counsel. "It would be a very serious matter if the impression got abroad among the great mass of people unacquainted with the subtle differences between particular offences that a man was punished twice for substantially the same offence." Counsel said it was quite true that accused had been previously convicted for activities which lie said he had renounced. He did meritorious service at the front during the war, having volunteered for active service. He was certainly not a leader in the riot, and his part appeared to have been very minor indeed. Counsel said McCorkindale was in a similar position to Bourbeau. He had been sentenced to two months' imprisonment for the theft of tobacco on the night of the riot, and had also been fined £5 or one month for throwing stones in Queen Street. He had btfen sentenced to three months' imprisonment for' an offence which arose out of the same set of circumstances. Plea For Searles. Counsel for Searles said that he felt he could honestly say that when accused left home on the night of April 14 he had no intention of taking part in any trouble. He had hitherto borne an excellent character. He was in no way violently minded, but was religiously inclined, and the unfortunate position in which he now stood was due to no fault of his own. Counsel presented a cablegram from Father Martindale, of London, in which the reverend gentleman testified to accused's good character. • His Honor's Comments. His Honor said he proposed to take into consideration the fact that Budd had already been sentenced in connection with libelling a police officer. He would be sentenced to one year and nine months' imprisonment with hard labour, this term to be served at the expiration of tile sentence of six months already imposed. -Regarding McCorkindale, his Honor said lie had been punished in the Magistrate's Court for offences, arising out of the riot. Apart from this he appeared to be a confirmed criminal, as his criminal career began in 1909, when he was convicted of wilful damage. Since then he had accumulated a long list of convictions, the offences including wilful damage, mischief, theft, assault and obstruction of police. Accused was sentenced to one year and nine months' imprisonment with hard labour. Regarding Bourbeau, his Honor said if, as had been suggested, accused was possessed of some idea of reforming the world, he was certainly going the wrong_ way about it. In 1924 he was convicted" in connection with the sale of a book that incited to lawlessness, in 1929 of issuing seditious documents, and in 1931 of assault. No doubt he was a much misguided man, but he was a dangerous agitator, and one of the worst in Auckland at the present time. It had been clearly proved that he took an active part in the riot. Sentence of one year and nine months' imprisonment, with hard labour, was passed.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AS19320806.2.135

Bibliographic details

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 185, 6 August 1932, Page 11

Word Count
689

FOUR MEN SENTENCED. Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 185, 6 August 1932, Page 11

FOUR MEN SENTENCED. Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 185, 6 August 1932, Page 11

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert