OFFENSIVE WEAPON

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 204, 12 August 1932, Page 8

OFFENSIVE WEAPON

MENACE TO SPECIAL POLICE ECHO OF RECENT RIOT. AN UNSUCCESSFUL APPEAL. Wellington, Aug. 11. An echo of the disturbance in Wellington on the evening of May 11 was heard m the Supreme Court to-day, when the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, heard an appeal by William Henry Pearce against his conviction by Mr Page, S.M., on a charge of being a rogue and a vagabond in that he was in possession of an offensive weapon, a stone with felonious intent. The hearing of the appeal took the form of a re-trial. The assistant Crown Prosecutor said that the case arose out of trouble which occurred in the vicinity of Ghuznee street on the night of May 11. Following on a riot that afternoon, special constables on duty had been subjected to considerable hostility. When arrested the appellant, it was alleged, had said to one of the regular policemen; “I don’t mind you fellows, but I nave no time for the other —A stone had been found in Pearce’s pocket. Evidence was given by Crown witnesses as to minor disturbances and «tone-throwing in the vicinity of the spot where Pearce was arrested, and evidence was given for the appellant to the effect that he had not taken any part in any of disturbances. Pearce stated that he had picked up a pakapoo ticket wrapped round a stone just prior to his arrest and when he saw the police rpproaching he had put both the ticket and the stone in his pocket AN OFFENSIVE WEAPON. Mary Catherine Pearce, mother of the appellant, said that her son stayed at her place in Aro street on May 11 and did .ot leave the house until 8

p.m., when he went out to make arrangements about his wife’s admission to hospital. “We’re workers and work hard,” said witness with emotion, but thank God we’re respectible. I feel that f could say a lot.” Witness left the 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. His Honour said that he had no hesitation in saying that the stone found upon Pearce was capable of being held to be an offensive weapon. Even such a small stone nvght inflict serious injury, even kill. Counsel: It is a serious thing to deem a man a rogue and a vagabond. The Chief Justice: It js an even more serious thing that a young man should go about the city with a stone in his pocket for the purpose of inflicting Bartons injury on persons doing their uty and helping to keep the peace. HIS HONOUR'S CONCLUSIONS. “I fear 1 am no more credulous than the learned Magistrate who convicted the appellant,” said the Chief Justice. “Like the Magistrate I also x reject the explanation given by the , appellant for the presence of the stone in his pocket. I am satisfied that after the arrest the appellant made the statement, It is not the police but the other—l do not like.’ Appellant’s intention • was, had he not been taken by the police, to join the other men hurling stones at specials. Plainly the intention, of these young men was to do injury. It was plain that the stone found in the appellant’s pocket would, if it hit a person, be calculated to do serious injury. The appeal therefore Will be dismissed.” “I have to consider the case in the light of the time,” said His Honour, 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 Careless of what injuries they inflict, they must be punished.” Costs were fixed at £6 6/-.