SUPREME COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 29 July 1932, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

AUCKLAND RIOT TRIAL

JIM EDWARDS’ EVIDENCE

[PER press association.]

AUCKLAND, July -29. The trial of James Henry Edwards, on a charge of taking part in the no on April 14, was continued at the Supreme Court, to-day. The jurymen were kept together last night. About 30 witnesses, mostly police men, gave evidence for the Crown, their evidence closely following that given in the Lower Court; and in other riot cases. Detective-Sergeant Boyle said he had previous experience of riots, including the Lloyd George riot in Birmingham (during the Boer War), but nevei saw a more disorderly crowd than the one outside the Town Hall. Counsel for the defence said the Crown, by skilijully presenting evidence, had coloured the case against Edwards. Many weapons were exhifr ited in Court, but there was no evidence that Edwards had used any of them. The police made mistake like other people, and he intended to call evidence which would entirely disagree with much of the police testimony. Edwards, who said he was married, with eight children, stated that when walking in the 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 our wives and kids?” He had no intention of creating trouble at the start of the riot. He saw a crowd outside the main door break into the semi-circle and the police driving them back with batons. He ran along intending to call upon the crowd to give no trouble, but was struck down. . Cross-examined, accused said he was a member of the Communist Party for about a year,’ and gave three addresses. The Unemployed Workers’ Movement regarded him as a leader. The Labour Defence League was composed of men in all walks of life. The League was for the legal and financial protection of “men in an unfortunate position, like myself.” Accused, when asked why he went into hiding after the riot, said he knew from experience, that in times of trouble, the police always looked for those they considered the leaders, particularly if they happened to be Communists.

The Crown Prosecutor: But you had done nothing, you say? Accused: That is so but I belonged to a party not very popular with the police just then. Accused admitted telling crowds that if they were attacked they should crowd round the, police and take batons off them. Other witnesses for the defence were called. t / (Proceeding.). LIBEL ON POLICE CHARGE. JURY’S DISAGREEMENT.

[PEB PRESS ASSOCIATION.]

AUCKLAND, July 28. The trial was continued, this afternoon, at the Supreme Court, of George Budd and Ernest Frederick Thomson, on a charge of publishing a defamatory libel of Police Inspector Lander. Counsel for the accused said the astonishing thing was that the Magistrate had ever permitted such a prosecution for criminal libel. The Crown Prosecutor said that the law of criminal libel had been brought in only in 1901, because it had been found necesary to restrain irresponsible and dangerous persons from libelling men in public positions. His Honor described the case as comparatively simple. made against Inspector Lander were that he was a liar, that he perjured himself, and that. he attacked defenceless men and women. It was open to the defence to seek to prove that the' statements were true, but they had not done so. If these words had been published, it would -be absurd and impossible to suggest that they were not defamatory. The main defence was that these men were not responsible for the publication and distribution of the paper, blit there was direct evidence of two police officers implicating Thompson. The name of Budd was at the bottom of the paper. The real question was “Is this a defamatory libel referring to Inspector Lander?” After three and a-half hours’ retirement, the jury returned to ask if a verdict of publishing was found against Budd, and one of aistributing against Thompson, would both be equally guilty? His Honor replied that if Budd published the libel he was guilty, and if Thompson distributed a libellous document he also was guilty. That there was an impossibility of reaching an agreement was reported by the foreman of the jury after a retirement of four and a-half hours. His Honor discharged the jury. He said the accused would be re-tried on Monday. “No; I won’t allow them bail,” he told counsel. “They can stay where they are.”

ASSAULT ON CHINESE. ALLEGATION AGAINST POLICE. WELLINGTON, July 29. Flat denials that they visited a Chinese premises, with the motive of robbery, and allegations that they had been induced to make a written statement to Detective Hayhurst, in which they were alleged to have admitted guilt on the promise that a girl would not be brought into the case, were made by Albert Ernest Clifton, 22, and Leonard Humphreys, 23, on trial at the Supreme Court, before Mr Justice Reed, and a jury, on a charge of as- , saulting and robbing Ah Lai at his premises, Pirie Street, on July 15. They further alleged in the witnessbox, that their purpose in going to the shop was to warn the Chinese from associating with white girls. In cross-examination the girl who had been referred to as “Peggy” Johnstone, and who gave her name as Margaret Johnstone, after first denying it, admitted that she had been living with Humnhrey as man and wife. She was at Ah Lai’s place that night Summing up, his Honor criticised the defence and the allegations made against the detective and said that the

case assumed a serious aspect, because of the very gross charge that had been made against Detective Hayhurst. The jury is out.

MOTORIST ACQUITTED.

WELLINGTON, July 28.

After- a retirement of four hours, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty in the Supreme Court case against James Thomas Rutherford, charged with negligent driving, and thereby causing death. The charge arose out of the level crossing accident at 'Masterton on the evening of April 9, when a bus driven by Rutherford, was struck by a train, and ope of the passengers, ’ Frank Muirhead, was killed.

AN OLD OFFENDER.

NELSON, July 2S.

Found guilty of breaking and entering the Globe Hotel and stealing nine pounds, a quantity of liquor, cigarettes and coins, Edward Davis was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with hard labour, and declared an habitual criminal. Mr Justice Blair said it appeared that accused since 1915 had spent more of his life in gaol in Australia than out. MAN IMPRISONED. DUNEDIN, July 28. Oswald Holder, who pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court, to-day, before Mr Justice Kennedy, to attempted indecent assault on a male was sentenced to eight months with hard labour. ACQUITTED. DUNEDIN, July 29. At the Supreme Court, Roland Seymour was acquitted on a charge of false pretences, by attempting to obtain £l5O from the. Eagle Star British Dominion Insurance Co., in respect of property on Taieri.