CAPLESTON EXPLOSION

Grey River Argus, 12 June 1933, Page 3

CAPLESTON EXPLOSION

Offender Sentenced TO THREE YEARS’ HARD LABOUR At the Suprenn* Court at Greymouth on Saturday morning James Mrl.ay Wright, who was found guilty on a charge that, at Uapleston, on May 21. by night, will: intent to annoy Joseph Nohra, he attempted to alarm Nohia l>y exploding gelignite adjacent to his dwelling house, was sentem ed by M<’ Justice Blair, Iq. three years’ imprisonment with hard labour. Mr T. F. Brosi;-an entering a ple.i for leni' ncy, said \\ right was a young man. aged 29 years. lie had two pro- \ .ous convictions. His Honor said the previous convictions had nothing to do with the present charge. They were for <d)>ceii language ami lighting. Counsel need not bother about them. Wright was evidently a bit of a bully Mr Brosnan said that there was nothing criminally known of Wright, until the unfortunate case now before His Honor. The facts showed that, nothing was premeditated. On the conlr-ary. it was a climax to an unfortunate sol of circumstances that cxiste:. It was unfortunate that, in a mining district, gelignite could easily be proci.red. His Honor: You art* not complaining about that, surely! What is unforl umile about t hat ? Mr Brosnan: It was to his hand, and when the occasion arose — His Honor: I suppose there ••tie axes to your hand. People do not run around with axes, killing other people. No one is compell'd to use weapons. 1 don't see that Ikis anything to do with Mr Brosnan said it was also unfortunate that his (dient apparently ■ espised Nohra, but his feelings were not stronger than that. The third unfortunate uiruumst-ance was that. in a small community such as Capleston, there wde no means of recreation when the men were not working. Had there b'en some physical sport in which accused could have engaged, c«mn>el submitted that Wright would not have appeared in Court on this < harge. Nohra had said that, <>n the night of the explosion. h'‘ heard a noise, and ..assume • I that it was the ‘‘mob’’ returning. It appeared to be the usual thing, for the men to spend I hei r e 1 k-ends in Re<*ftou The jury's finding was that the facts showed that all lhe accused did was to al tempt to annoy. His Honor said Wright did more than that. The charge was that by night, with intent to annoy, he did attempt to alarm Nohra. by an explosion m ar his dwelling house. Mr Brosnan said that the jury took <i. considerable time to arrive at their tinding. The purpose of punishment was not only deterrent, but reforma live. Th'.ro was no reason why accus cd could not be a valuable member oi society. The ends of Justice had been met, in that the- offender had been con victed. and that the witnesses laid not been afraid to come forward. His Honor said that he had been interested in the latter phase of the matter, and had made enquiries from the police. If anyone had been ill hi lhe locality, the chances w*'re that ihe effects of the explosion might have been serious. It struck him as pecu.iar that every one of the puo ph* poked their heads under the bedclothes and stayed there. It* looked as though they were terrified. The police said that there was considerable difficulty in getting anyone t<» talk, because they were afraid to talk. In case of fire, for instance, it was usually found that everyone ran outof their houses, to st*c what was happening

Mr Brosnan said that Nohra himself did not show ar.y undue alarm, and neither did the women in the lu'u.-e. The jury had found that the explosion was caused with intent to ani.oy. Counsel appealed strongly to His Honor, to consider whetlu r a lenient sentence on Wright, imposing a trust in him, might not mean the saving of a good citizen. His Honor asked how counsel could consider Wright was a good citizen. He asked if a man who accepted aid from another wa s a good citizen and whom Wright used objectionable language about. Nohra helped him and he turnetl round and showed the basest i’gratitude. If that was the standard of citizenship on the West Coast, he should say it was a shocking libel on the citizens of the West Coast. His experience of West Coasters was that they were people who had the greatest respect for their obligations. Because Nohra asked for an account which ought to be paid, could be paid and would not be paid, Wright turned around and used violence. Counsel said he was a good citizen, but His Honor thought he was a disgrace to the citizenship of the West Coast, both h“ and the other man. Schroder.

Mr Brosnan stated that the only other offenc ( ’s accused had committed were not, in themselves, criminal. Wright in this case committed an unpremeditated offence, which might have happened while he was under thu influence of liquor, and leniency should not be withheld. Leniency might have the effect of giving Wright an incentive to undo the wrong he had done, and to regain his place in society. His Honor asked how Wright was going to undo it. He did not understand what Counsel meant. Mr Brosnan said there wa s no rea son why Wright could not attempt to start anew. His Honor said he always had the idea that, to undo a wrong was to put right that wrong. He asked how Wright was going to undo what he had done. Mr Brosnan sai ! he could expiate the punishment for his crime His Honor: But you say I should

not punish him. You suggest that i .diouhl put him "n his honour. 1 fur.uot see honour oozing out of him. so far. Mr Brosnan: No sir. I suggest thal if rhe punishment is reformative, rather than deterrent. it may give this man an incentive to restore himself to the position he has lost in society. Ili.s Honor: 1 wish someone <‘lse had this part of the job. There is no pail of my job .1 dislike more than deal ing with criminal c-as'\s. Nobo y knows the worry it causes me. Accused is not a man of honour, but just a blackguard. Th«« case showed thal Schroder ai d Wright were staked by Nohra, to enable th' m to earn their living. ami they showed their gratitude not onlv bv not returning the money which they could return and were in a position to return; th* v showed base ingratitude by refusing to pay, and. when Nohra took the very natural cuursfi of compelling them to pay, by Court proceedings, these blackguards turned round and made Nohra’s life a burden, terrified him, and used fearful language to him. They wore living in a little township and the other people there did not know when they would get similar treatment. Thf.-e men seemed to imagine they- were a law unto themselves It must b<» made plain to them that this sort of thing is not going to be tolerated; otherwise, life would be made unbearable for everybody. I’ made enquiries, ami the police said it was not until one man had the courage to speak, that others were prepared to come t° r ' ward and give evidence against the accused. The first charge against Wright was an offence on which the punishment might be anything up to life imprisonment. The jury found him not guilty on that charge, probably with good reason, accused’s idea being to annoy Nohra, but not to damage his house The damage to the house was incidental. However, someone in the house might have ben injured, or might have conic out of the house and been blown to pieces. It was a shocking thing to do. Instead of having a grievance against Nohra, accused should have been grateful to him. That is the man Counsel suggested should be put on

his honour, to show what a wonder • fully good citizen he was. I cannot see any evidence of good citizenship about him; the very- reverse is the case. It looks to me that I would be completely failing in my duty to everybody, if I treated this case as a lenient matter. I do have to take into consideration the fact that this is his first offence, so far as criminal law is concerned, the others being only trivial matters. His Honor imposed a sentence of three years’ imprisonment with hard labour on Wright.