SEQUEL TO AFFRAY AT OAMARU

Dominion, Volume 34, Issue 112, 5 February 1941, Page 10

SEQUEL TO AFFRAY AT OAMARU

Charge Of Attempted Murder EVIDENCE FOR CROWN Events At Meeting Of Jehovah’s Witnesses (By Telegraph— Press Association.) DUNEDIN, February 4. At the criminal session of the Supreme Court which commenced today the grand jury returned a true bill * against William Meehan, Oamaru, on a charge of attempted murder at Oamaru of George Robert Edwards and Frederick Henry AlcAulev. Accused was also charged' with committing bodily harm with a rifle. Mr. Justice Kennedy, in his charge to the Grand Jury, said the attempted murder charge arose out of a set ot c-ircumstanees in Oamaru when a group of people calling themselves Jehovah’s Witnesses gathered ata meeting. A man appeared with a loaded rifle and a fixed bayonet. “You may judge a man’s state or mind by what he says and what be does,” his Honour said. “A peaceful meeting is no place to take a loaded rille.” The trial then commenced. Meehan K being defended by Mr. C. S. Thomas, Christchurch, with him Mr. Farrell, Oamaru. Jehovah’s Witnesses. Mr. Adams, for the Crown, said that the offences alleged occurred o n October 13 while a meeting of Jehovah’s Witnesses was in progress. A man came up to the ushers, and the bullet which wounded McAuley passed through Edward’s coat. McAuley suffered such injuries as to reduce him to a cripple, with one leg taken off. Dr. Butler, the first witness, after detailing the injuries, said he saw accused at the police station. He told accused that McAuley was seriously injured. Accused expressed surprise, stating that he had not intended that. Accused’s eyes were red, but witness could not form the opinion that he was drunk. Harry Mark Stanley Bradbury, company sergeant-major of the National Reserve, Oamaru, said accused was a member of the reserve and had been issued with a rifle and bayonet on August 2 last, the weapon being the one produced in Court. To Mr. Farrell, witness said accused was a returned soldier, and from his personal knowledge of him in the reserve he was a good soldier. Railwayman's Evidence. James Hubbard, railway employee, said he was on the way home on the night of the alleged crime when he passed accused, who was carrying a rifle. Frederick Henry McAuley, who called himself a preacher of the Gospel, said he was sitting in the hall about half an hour after the meeting started when he heard a scuffle outside. He opened the door, and just at that moment a shot rang out and he felt a bullet go into his leg. He fell on the floor wounded. When he opened the door it was too dark in the lobby to see anything except the flash of a gun. George Robert Edwards, preacher of the Gospel, said just after the meeting had started accused called al the hall and asked if the lecture had commenced. He said he was going away to get two friends who might be interested in the lecture. About a quarter of an hour later he returned and presented a rifle, stating: “I’ve got the wood on you—now put up your hands. If you don’t, I’ll shoot.” Witness was ordered to open the inner door of the hall, and he did so, just enough to call for McAuley. As the door closed accused went for him with the bayonet, stating that if he did not open the door he would blow witness’s brains out. Witness warded off the bayonet with one hand and grabbed the bayonet with the other. A struggle followed and then the inner door opened and someone looked out. The rifle went off. The other man present, Ridling, struck accused on the face and Meehan dropped the rifle and staggered out on to the street. Witness closed with him and held him till the police arrived. The Apostle Peter. Cross-examined by Mr. Thomas, witness said he had not been through a theological college. It was not necessary. Mr. Thomas: Have you had auy kind of special training at a college? Witness: Did the apostle Peter? That is not the answer. Did you have special training?—No. Were you put through any examination to' see if you understood the Scriptures?—Yes, at various doors. That’s where you get the best training. You passed the sixth standard at school?—No, neither did the Apostle Peter. Is Judge Rutherford your leader? — No. Christ Jesus is our leader. Is Judge Rutherford your leader on earth? —Christ is using him as an instrument but we don’t look on him as a leader. Do you play records to people at the doors of houses if they don’t want to hear them? No. “Now, Edwards.’’ said Mr. Tbomas, “I want the Court to hear what your teachings are.” Mr. Adams: 1 submit that is not relevant. Mr. Tbomas submitted legal argument on the question of the admissibility of such evidence, stating that unless the jury knew what was going on in the hall il could not understand the case or the state of mind of accused. Accused knew that .subversive and seditious teaching was going ou in the hall ami be was going into the ball to stop it. Mr. Adams .submitted that the whole question of the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses was a “red herring” ami that the trial should not be perverted into a religious discussion. His Honour ruled that Mr. Thomas might elicit evidence as to the nature of the meeting and as to accused’s beliefs of the nature of the meeting as going to show intent. Mr. Thomas (to witness): Are Jehovah's Witnesses against all organized religion?

Witness: Yes, but. not against individuals in any religion.

Hallett Ridling, a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses, corroborated the evidence of the previous witness regarding the occurrence outside the hall. Cross-examined, witness said the recorded lecture at the hall was not a religious one. It was entitled “Government and Peace.” Ronald William Arnott, mechanic, who attended the meeting, gave evidence regarding the affray. Under cross-examination, he admitted that he had discussed the ease with other witnesses and “practised for cross-examination.” The Court then adjourned.