RIOTING AT AUCKLAND

Hawera Star, Volume LI, 23 May 1932, Page 7

RIOTING AT AUCKLAND

‘PREMEDITATED DISTURBANCE’ SUGGESTION TO JURY SUPREME COURT TRIAL. FOURTEEN MEN CHARGED.

CBy Telegraph—Press Association.) ATTCKL-AiND, May 23. The trial of 14 .men charged in connection with the riot in Queen Street on April 14 began at a special session of the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Herdman to-day. The jury panel num'berecl over 150 rind filled the court, none of the general public being allowed in the courtroom until the jury was empanelled. The fourteen men were each charged that in company with James Henry Edwards and other persons unknown they took part in a riot; also that they took part in an unlawful assembly. Counsel for two of the accused applied for a separate trial. The Crown Prosecutor objected and the judge said it was obvious that all must be tried together. The Crown's view was that all the men were parties to a common purpose just a:s in a charge of conspiracy. The application was refused. Three counsel appearing for the accused challenged 16 jurors and tne Crown stood down 13, but the jury was chosen in less than half an hour. ' The names of the accused are: Joseph Silver (England) aged 32, > George Devereaux (Ireland ) 38, Os-| wald Bourbeau (Canada) 51, John Sharpe (Scotland) 36. Simeon Elan (an Australian) 21. Leo Martinovich (New Zealand) 18, Harold Robertson (New Zealand) 19. John Hubert Edwards (England) 38, Clifford John Dudson (New Zealand) 31, James William Rae Simpson (Scotland) 32. Mate. Dragovitch (Dalmatia) 33, John William McCorkindale (New Zealand) 37. William John Budd (England) 35, Albert William Scari (England) 26. Broken wooden palings, a revolver, a catapult, wooden clubs and. pieces of iron gas piping were prominent exhibits in court. The Crown Prosecutor told the jury that it was possible for persons lawfully assembled to become an unlawful assembly. Once an assembly of three or more persons began to behave themselves in such a manner as to cause a beach of the peace they had become an unlawful assembly in the eyes of the law. A serious feature of this case was that some of the people assembled were anticipating trouble and the inference might properly be -drawn that they were desirous of. precipitating it. * Describing the Tiot he said the unemployed procession was more or less marshalled by a man named James Edwards and by the accused Silver and Devereaux. Stones were thrown through windows long before the main riot started. This showed that the outbreak was premeditated for there were no stones in Queen Street. The Crown Prosecutor said that no fewer than 340 battens had been wrenched from a fence after the riot started. What happened showed that many men took advantage of an ir.no-, cent procession by going to the Town Hall armed with missiles. The Crown Prosecutor referred to a conversation which took place oil the morning of April 14 between a constable and one of the accused named Bourbeau. He said that Bourbeau warned the constable there would be a riot if the police allowed cars and other vehicles to go through the procession and Bourbeau added : “You have my sympathy old man, for if the fight really starts you will find the demonstrators are as well armed as the police.” All the circumstances, said tne Crown Prosecutor, pointed to the disturbance as being premeditated and prepared for. Tt might be urged that some of the accused were overcome ny excitement, but all the excitement in the world could not put stones 1n a man’s pocket.