SERIOUS CHARGE

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 153, 14 June 1932, Page 8

SERIOUS CHARGE

INCITING TO LAWLESSNESS EDWARDS GIVEN THREE MONTHS SECURITY FOR APPEAL LODGED. Auckland, June 13. James Henry Edwards, a Communist leader, was to-day convicted and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment on a charge of inciting to lawlessness. Security for appeal has been lodged. On an indictable charge of participating in the riot Edwards was, on his plea of not guilty, committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Evidence was given in support of that by the accused. Explaining that he had been subpoenaed to attend, Albert Dickson, secretary of the Furniture Trades Union, said that after the first party had charged the Town Hall doors ho had seen a man raise his bands, but he could not say whether or not that was Edwards. The man was struck and fell He saw Edwards later on the balustrade, and blood was streaming down his face.

Au account of Edward's speech from tho balustrade was given by Miss E. E. Jury. Edwards had said: “This is what 1 get for protecting the police yesterday. To-night they baton me. 1 call on this mass meeting to witness that we hold tho police entirely responsible for this trouble.” Edwards also said: “You have seen an unprovoked attack on the unemployed to-night.” NOTHING TO INCITE CROWD. Before calling on those present to pass a resolution, Edwards tried to draw an unemployed crowd from Airedale street and Grey’s avenue to the vicinity of the balustrade, said witness. There was nothing in his conduct to incite the crowd. On the contrary, his conduct was definitely i» the other direction. Somewhat similar evidence regarding Edwards’ speech was given by Thomas Kelly, a carpenter, at present on relief works. The Magistrate remarked that he did not see how the crowd could take the batons from the police without using violence. “Well, that is what Edwards said ” replied witness. Three other witnesses gave evidence touching the same incident. Edwards ’ counsel, in closing the evidence in answer to the summary charge, suggested that the Magistrate should consider reserving his decision until after the Supreme Court hearing of the indictable charge. The Magistrate said that he could not do that. He would consider his decision on the summary charge during the luncheon adjournment.

MAGISTRATE’S DECISION. “This charge of inciting to lawlessness is totalling different from the charge of taking part, in the riot,” said Mr Hunt in announcing his decision after the resumption. “Thirteen or fourteen police officers have given the>r version of what took place. Necessarily there are discrepancies in their evidence, which is easily understandable seeing the exciting moments they were passing through. “It is perfectly clear to mo that Edwards made this speech—he admits it himself —in which he said: ‘Surround them, boys, and take their batons off them,' or words to that effect. To my mind that statement in itself incites to lawlessness. Tncrefore I have no option on the evidence bnt to convict him.” Counsel for Edwards: I submit that to give him as fair a trial as possible in the Supreme Court in connection with the other charge the question of sentence on this charge should be held over until after the Supreme Court case. ACCUSED SENTENCED. Recalling his action in connection with recent similar cases Mr Hunt said that he must be consistent. Ho had deferred sentence in cases where he considered the offence to be slight. However, he had dealt with other cases and would act similarly with Edwards A good deal of damage had been done and great expense had been incurred Edwards would be sentenced to three months’ imprisonment Counsel for Edwards: Then I propose to appeal. Mr Hunt: On what grounds? Counsel: That the verdict is against the weight of tho evidence. Security for appeal was fixed at £2O When tho question of bail was raised Mr Hunt said: “You had better go to the Supremo Court for that.” Counsel protested at that course being prescribed. The Crown Prosecutor said that he would oppose bail. dounsel contended that, according to law, Edwards was entitled to bail undei such circumstances. Ho quoted tho section from the Act bearing oh the point. Mr Hunt said that, ho would look into into the question later. THE INDICTABLE CHARGE. The indictable charge of taking part in the riot was then proceeded with. Depositions of evidence given in prcvl ous similar cases were read to the

witnesses and confirmed by them, thus expediting the procedure. On his plea of not guilty Edwards was sent to the Supreme Court for trial, bail of £250 being allowed. Regarding bail, In view of his intention to appeal against tho decision on the first charge, it was subsequently announced that, on Edwards entering into a bond of £2O to prosecute his appeal, he was given his liberty pending the appeal being determined by the Supreme Court.