EDWARDS GUILTY

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 264, 3 August 1932, Page 10

EDWARDS GUILTY

Auckland Riot Leader RESULT OF RETRIAL His Honour Defers Sentence HAPPENINGS ON APRIL 14 Dominion Special Service. Auckland, August 2. A verdict of guilty was returned by a jury in the Supreme Court today in the retrial o£ James Henry Edwards, who was charged with taking part in a riot in Queen Street on April 14. His Honour deferred the passing of sentence.

At the first trial last week, which resulted, in a jury disagreement, Edwards, who is a married man with eight children, said that when walking in a procession to the Town Hall he called out the “usual working class slogans”—namely, “Shall we. go into slave camps or shall we fight for out wives and kids?” He had no intention of creating trouble. At the start of the riot he saw the crowd outside the main door break into a semi-circle, and the police driving them back with batons. He ran along, intending to call upon the crowd to give no troubles but was struck down. Regarded as Unemployed Leader. Cross-examined, accused said that ha had been a member of the Communist Party for about a year, and had given three addresses. The Unemployed Workers’ Movement regarded him as a leader. The Labour Defence League, composed of men in all walks of life, was for the legal and financial protection of “men in an unfortunate position like myself.” When asked why he went into hiding after the riot, Edwards said that ha knew from experience that in times of trouble the police always looked for those whom they considered were the leaders, particularly if they happened to be Communists. The Crown Prosecutor: But you had done nothing, you say? The Accused: “That Is so, but I belonged to a party not very popular with the police just then.” Accused admitted telling the crowd that if they were attacked they should crowd round the police and take their batons off them. Most Dangerous Type. When summing up at the original trial, the judge pointed out that the most dangerous type in the community might be not a man who was openly violent, but a man who was fluent with his'togue, and perhaps saturated with undesirable literature, and who influenced his fellows to take part in such proceedings as those of April 14. There was ample evidence that Edwards was associated with the procession that night, and ample evidence that the rioting was not a sudden explosion, but premeditated. In such circumstances as arose, the police were fully justified in using their batons, and if Edwards did as he said he did, urge these people to take batons from the police “and use no violence,” then he was undoubtedly encouraging a riot. What right had he when the police were discharging their duty to encourage his men to seize their batons? „