NOT GUILTY

Feilding Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 4592, 18 May 1922, Page 2

NOT GUILTY

BISHOP LISTON ACQUITTED. A FINE SUMMING UP. (Per Press Asp / ' , 2iation.) Auckland, May 17. , The charge of using seditious lan- • guago against Bishop Liston was resumed to-day. Mr Hall Skelton, solicitor, describing himself as an Anglican, in giving evidence, referred to the conversation he had with Bishop Liston before the speech in question was delivered. Mr Meredith objected that this was irrelevant, and that the interview must have occurred seven months ago. His Honour said lie had serious doubts about the admissibility ot this as evidence, but preferred to admit it rather than exclude it when it might throw light on tiio issue. Witness said ho was delivering a series of lectures iu the country, and Bishop Liston said he should be cfiieful not to say anything likely to cause friction between different sections ol tlie community. Witness denied that the Bishop sent for him because be was getting over the edge in his (Mr Skelton’s) Town Hall speech. James O’Brien, timber merchant, gave evidence that from personal intercourse with Bishop Liston lie i- as convinced the Bishop was as *nyal as himself and a strong supporter of the Irish Free State. This closed the case for tlio defence. Counsel addressed the Court. HFS HONOUR SUMS UP. In summing up, Mr Justice Stringer spoke for an hour. His Honour said if the jury remembered the report was published in the Herald of Saturday. The Mayor no doubt- assumed the report to he true. He lodged, and had printed, a protest that was circulated throughout the land, and a storm of protest arose. He agv.eed also with counsel for the Crown that it was almost equally unfortunate that, notwithstanding this protest having been published before the explanation had been obtained, the Bishop should have refrained from replying. Ho did so under advice, and could not be held responsible, but there could be no doubt, he thought, that even after the protest had been made and the comments appeared, if the Bishop had given an explanation and had shown at any rate that in what he thought tfce most vital parts of his -Speech passages had been omitted that altogether altered the sense, if it had not allayed public feeling it would almost certainly have prevented proceedings being initiated. It was difficult, he felt, for the jury to approach the case with tlmr judicial calm they might have observed if the question had not been ventilated so Neely up to the time the proceeding were formally initiated. Sedition was a serious‘thing. The term was not applied to foolish utterances on various subjects, political, religious or racial. There must be behind the words intention to stir up strife or disaffection among people. It was not contended in this case that anything against the Government or King was -ntendcd. The contention of the Crown was that the words used oil this occasion wore calculated and intended to stir up strife among olio people, and to set one class against another. That was a- question which the jury had to determine. They had to be satisfied that the language used vas intended to have than effect. In the first part of the speech, whatever one might think of it if it were a question of taste, it was necessary to apply a very different criterion It was not a question of taste in a case of this kind. Tho question ivas whether it was sedtiion. Ho must confess, though tho matter was for the jury, it did not seem to him if this had stood alone, that any seditious intention could reasonably he attributed to it. It was spoken of things winch had happened 40 or 50 years ago, i nd was spoken of as historical events. I hat being so, it seemed to him rather farfetched to suggest that the mere mention of it to an audience, mostly of Irishmen, involved intention to stir up strife among the people of_New Zealand. Then, said His Honour, they came to what must he recognised as the crucial part of the allegation of seditious speech, the passage which referred to closer history, and to those “murdered by foreign troops.” It was in respect of that that there was a serious contndiction of evidence. The jury would have to make up their minds what wore the words actually used. If they came to the conclusion that they were words stated by the Bishop to have been used by him, it put a very different complexion on the passage. Tho reference was particularly to the allegation about ‘'murdered by foreign troops.” Of course, it was admitted that there was reference to the “Glorious Easter.” The Bishop apparently was proud, and asked his audience to join him in being proud, of the men who died in this rebellion Tn the first place, tho jury had to remember that in a matter relating to the so-called Irish rebellion very different considerations had to be applied from those of rebellion in the ordinary sense of the wor k There had been a great many rebellious in Ireland, and it was reasonable to suppose that Irishmen considered those who died in fruitless rebellions were entitled to respect because they died not for themselves, but in the endeavour to free Ireland from what was considered oppression. The passage in the speech with regard to the list was tho most important, for, as it stood in the indictment, it would be open for the jury to say it w's exceedingly provocative and calculated to cause disaffection and illwill. If tlie words actually uttered wero as stated by the Bishop, however, it put quite a different complexion on the matter. There was no doubt he though that the people killed by the Black and Tans were in Jaw murdered, said His Honour, that was recognised by the British Government itself, so that if the Bishop’s reference was to be interpreted as referring solely to the. Black and Tans reprisals, it was stating what wore actual facts. It might bear a different interpretation, but it would he no more inciting to disaffection and. strife than many speeches made in the British Parliament drawing attention to the murders of Irishmen, not of n gathering of Englishmen met to discuss the murder of policemen by Irishmen. That was the most important point to consider. They had to decide if the Crown had proved what were the words used. If that wore left m doubt they had to determine what the words wero. Then they bad to decide if the words actually uttered wore used with seditious intent. In considering this they had to consider the wollle speech. They were ertiiled also to consider till occasion on which the words were used. It was St. Patrick’s Day, It was a gathering of Irishmen, and if a few Englishmen strayed in they would he very few The speech was made to Irishmen, and if the jury were to look at these things in a fair, broad and liberal spirti, they must not criticise them too closely. They might think that some of the tilings would have been better left unsaid. They might think some wero more provocative than they might be. They might tliinic it far better in New Zealand, whore L lslimcn and Englishmen dwell together in amity, that the memory of these wrongs should fall into oblivion, and that such an address should not be made, but they must go a good deaf further than that before they decided that the Bishop had in his mind the stirring up of strife. Unless they came to that conclusion, they could not find him guilty on the 'ndictmem. Still, said His Honour, he would have thought it better if the Bishop, in his last words, had, in the words of the King at the opening of the Northern Parliament, speaking of the wrongs and injuries of the people, said ‘ let us forgive and forget.” Unfortunately the Bishop said “let us remember and forgive.”

THE VERDICT. A verdict of not guilty was returned by the jury after an absence of 15 minutes. The jury added the following rider: We consider Bishop Liston was guilty of a grave indiscretion in using words capable of interpretation so calculated to give offence to a large number of the public of Now Zealand, and we hold that ho must bear

the responsibility, in part at least, for the unenviable notoriety that has followed his utterance. His Honour: Thank you, gcntloman. That is a very sensible rider . The announcement of the verdict was the. signal for an outburst of wild cheering and hand-clapping, shrill cries of the women in the gallery being particularly prominent. When order was restored, the Judge said it the police could find any who took part in the demonstration he would commit them for contempt.

JURY ADDS TELLING RIDER. DEMONSTRATION IN COURT. (Special to Wanganui Chro'iijcle). Auckland, May 17. The verdict was awaited by a crowded court, and when the jimy filed back a state of tense excitement prevailed, and when the foreman, in answer to tho usual question from the Registrar, announced a verdict of “not guilty” there was an immediate outburst of loud applause and wild cheering. The shrill and joyful cries of the women were particularly noticeable. Mr O’Regau jumped to his feet, and, with his hand, motioned to the demonstrators desist. The Court crier and a policeman, in stentorian voices, called for silence, hut it was some little time before the accustomed serenity of the Court was lestored. The Judge (who up to this time had recognised the futility of attempting to make himself heard) now took a hand by sternly reminding the people' that the Court was not a theatre and that if the police could identify any of the persons responsible for the interruption he .would send them to prison for contempt of Court. Order being now.thoroughly restored, the foreman, who had been patiently waiting all the time, stated that the jury had a rider to deliver. This unlooked-for announcement caused a fresh thrill of excitement. The reading of tlie rider and the Judge’s expression of concurrence therein wen received in almost stony silence.

After the (burl adjourned, a large crowd waited outside and ovaleil Messrs O’Regan and Conland. ’J hen wore erics for Dr Liston, the crowd expressing a desire to “chair” him, tint lie'failed to, appear, and eventually tho disappointed sympathiser? were informed that he had left by a side door.