STONE AND PAKAPOO

Greymouth Evening Star, 12 August 1932, Page 2

STONE AND PAKAPOO

JUDGE DISBELIEVES STORY.

[PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.]

WELLINGTON, August 11. An echo of the disturbance in Wellingtonon the evening of May was heard in the Court to-day, when the Chief' Justice; Sir IM!. Myeis, heard ah appeal' by "William lieniy Pearce, against his conviction by My. Page, S.M., on a charge of being a rogue arid a vagaborid,' in that he was in possession pf an offensive weapon, a stone, with felonious intent. The hearing of the appeal took the form of a reThe Assistant-Crown Prosecutor said this case arose out of trouble which ’o’ccureff iii the vicinity of nee Street, on the night of May 11, following on a riot that afternoon.. Special constables on duty had been Subject to considerable hostility. V h®P arrested, appellant, it was alleged, had said to one of the regular policemen: “I don’t mind you fellows, but I have no time for the other ’s.’’ A stone had been found in’Pearce’s pocket. Evidence was given by Crown wit-

nesses, as to minor disturbances and stone-throwing in the vicinity of the spot where Pearce was arrested. Evidence was given for the appellant to the effect that he had not taken part in any of the disturbances. Pearce stated that he had picked up a pakapoo ticket wrapped round a stone, just prior to his arrest, ano when he saw the police Approaching, he had put both tiie ! ticket arid the stone iii' his pocket.

Mrs. M'ary Catherine Pearce, the mother of the appellant, said that her sori stayed at lier place for the most part of May. He did not leave the house until 8 p.m., when he went out to make arrangements about his wife’s confinement. '

“We are workers, and we wor)< hard,” said the witness, with emotion; “but, thank God, we are respectable! I feel that I could say a lot.” The witness left the Court-room weeping.

Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the stone found on the accused was not capable of' being deemed an offensive weapon,' within the meaning of the Act.

Sir M. Myers said that he had no hesitation in saying that the stone found upon Pearce was capable of being held as being an offensive weapon. Even such a small stone might inflict a serious injury, or even kill. Counsel: It is a Serious thing to deem a man a rogue and a vagabond.

The Chief Justice;' It is even a more serious tliirig that a young man should go about the city with a stone in his pocket. I' am satisfied that after his arrest, the appellant made the statement: ‘lt is not the police, but other Ido not like.’ The appellant’s intention was, had he not been taken by the police, to join other men in hurling stones at specials. Plainly the intention of these 1 young men was to <jo injury. It was plain that the stone found in the appellant’s pocket, would, if if hit a person, be calculated to do serious injury. His appeal will, therefore, be dismissed.

“I have to consider the case in the light of the times,” said His Honor, when counsel asked if the sentence might be reviewed. “If young men will indulge in this pastime of throwing stones at men doing their duty, or if they have stones in their possession, or are careless of what injury they inflict, they must be punished.” The appeal costs , were fixed at £6 6s.