TEMPERANCE MEETINGS IN QUAY-STREET.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 11149, 23 August 1899, Page 6

TEMPERANCE MEETINGS IN QUAY-STREET.

MR, RICHARDSON CHARGED WITH

OBSTRUCTION.

JUDGMENT RESERVED.

At the Police Court yesterday morning William Richardson, who as a temperance lecturer has recently attracted some public attention by his utterances at open-air meetings, held at the Grey-street firebell and at the wharf, was charged before His Worship Mr. H. W. Brabant, S.M., with having unlawfully committed a breach of paragraph 6 of by-law 26 of the City Council, by holding a publio meeting in Quay-street so as to impede persons passing. A second information charged the defendant with having on the same date caused a number of persons to congregate in Quay-street, 60 as to impede pas-sers-by. There waa a crowded attendance of the public, including a numbor of wellknown local temperance advocates, who were evidently much interested in the proceedings. Mr. Cooper oonduoted the prosecution, and Mr. J. R. Reed appeared for the defence, pleading not guilty. Mr. Cooper, in opening the case, handed ; n a sealed copy of the by-law and the Gazette defining the city's boundaries. He said Mr. Richardson had been acoustomed to hold .meetings in the streets, and latterly the crowd assembled there had been a very great one. On the occasion referred to in the charge, there were many hundreds of people in the street, and the evidence would show that the street was completely blocked on the south side, while the crowd extended right aoross the road, leaving only a small portion of the street on the other side. The crowd had beon; attracted by the meeting held under the auspices of Mr. Richardson. He (Mr Cooper) submitted that there had been an otfcnco under by-law 26. The publio street was vested in the City of Auckland, and one of the rights of the publio was that the street fur be kept clear and uninterrupted for the free use of Her Majesty's subjects. Mr. Oooper quoted from decisions in the English low courts, with a view to showing that it was illegal to obstruct even a portion of the highway by causing persons to assemble. He said there was no power on the part of any individual membor of the publio to hold a public meeting in a public street. The law on the point had been recently settled in England. in consequent of prosecutions agaiMt Mr. John Burns, M.P., and others, for holding public meetings in Trafalgar . rt wns then ia > d down by the Chief Justice that no individual memher of the publio had any right to cause persons to collect in the public street, and that, further the public street existed for the uninterrupted use of Her Majesty's subjects. His Worship: Do not the Salvation Army occupy tho streets? Mr. Cooper said he believed they did. It might be that the Salvation Army wero technically breaking the by-law, but it did not follow tha because the City Council permitted the Salvation Army or other religious organisations to hold meetings in the streets, they must on that account submit to any person holding public discussions in the public street on disputed questions. Tho addresses given at defendant's meetings wore not at all calculated to improve the tempers of the people who went there. Albert'Urigg, draughtsman, in tho employ ot the City Counoil, deposed that Quay-street was in tho City of Auckland. Cross-examined: There were moro than tliroo buildings in tho street. There were four or fivo, witness thought. Sergeant Forbes said that 'on Sunday, July 30, tho defendant held a mooting in Quaystreet, which lasted about two hours. Witness thought there woro from 700 to 900 hundred people present, there might have been 1000. Tho meeting was held alSi° St "i fronfc of 1,16 Northern Roller , lour Mills. A table was used as a platform, and placed near the footpath, on the south sido of the street. Within about fivo or ton minutes after the meeting started tho footpath on the south side of tho street was completely blocked, and remained blocked until the meoting had concluded. Tho crowd extended over threeparts of the street, and practically occupied it. During the meeting 11 vehioles passed, and they had all to go round the crowd in order to get past. Several police officers were present to keep order. Witness, however, had only placed one extra constablo on duty. Tho crowd was a very orderly one. The defendant had held other meetings in Quay-street before and sinco tho date mentioned in the oharge. Cross-examined: Witness was instructed to attend tho defendant's meetings. None of the publio had complained to witness about tho crowd. There was not much traflio in Quaystreet on Sunday. . Constablo Sims also gavo evidonce in support of the charge. Cross-examined: Tho police did not warn the speakers at the meeting that they would likely be prosecuted. Constable Payno stated that lie heard the remark passed that the street was blocked. Ho saw people come down the south side of the street and cross over to got past the crowd, and go on without stopping to listen to tho speakers. Henry Luks, clork at tho Thames Hotel, said the footpatii was blocked, and tho street, so that only ono vehicle was able to pass at- a time.

Reuben Nioholls, range maker, John Moorhead, carter, and Herbert Stanton, were called by the prosecution to give evidence. Mr. Rood, for the defence, submitted that upon tlio evidence thero was no case to answer. The meetings of Mr. Richardson were not the only mutiny of this nature that were heln in Auckland. The Salvation Army met in Wellesley-street on Saturday nights, and caused a crowd to collect, that got on the footpath. Of course, his client was in entire sympathy with the Salvation Army, and ho referred to it only with a view to pointing out with what partiality it was attempted to enforce the by-law. There was no evidence of any disorder at the defendant's meetings; consequently this action must have been taken in connection with the subject upon which the defendant addressed his audience. There could bo no possible objection to his giving addresses on temperance. Several religious bodies were allowed to conduct services in the street without being interfered with in any way. Under the circumstances His Worship must come to the conclusion that someone, who was endeavouring to injure Mr. Richardson personally, was moving in the matter. The course pursued in this particular case was an extraordinary one. The City Council, instead of the traffic inspector, wore prosecuting, and they (the City Council) had evidently placed the matter in the hands of the police to obtain a conviction against Mr. Richardson personally. His Worship: There is no evidence of that. Mr. Reed: Tlio" evidence that would lead one to imagine that that was the case was the evidence of the sergeant, who was practically sent there specially to watch Mr. Richardson's meeting, and who subsequently laid the information against the defendant. They had also employed counsel in this matter, they being evidently determined to do all in their power to obtain a conviction against Mr. Richardson in this case. It was also a strange tiling that there was no evidence of any complaint having been made by the general public about traffio being impeded. Moreover, Mr. Riohardson hod never been requested to disperse the crowd, nor had any of the latter been asked by the police to move on. Under the circumstances, it would seem that the present aotion had been taken with some other end in view than the prevention of the impeding of traffic. On the facts he contended that there was no evidence of that cruoial point that there was an impeding of persons passing by. His Worship, however, held that there was a oase to answer, and Mr. Reed proceeded to oall evidence for the defence.

William Richardson, the defendant, who described himself as a temperance lecturer, said he was employed by the Temperance League to lecture in Auckland. When he came to Auokland he saw the Mayor (Mr. D. Goldie), and asked him if there were any by-laws that he (witness) was likely to infringe, as he purposed speaking in the open air, and whether he needed the Mayor's permission. The Mayor replied that he had no power to grant such a concession, a3 there was a " very dangerous" by-law in existence Witness reminded the Mayor that there were a number of meetings being held in the open air, and the Mayor said that they were all being illegally held. The Mayor then told witness it would be better for witness not to make an application for permission to speak, but rather to go round to the street facing the wharves, where he would be within the Harbour Board's jurisdiction. Quay-street answered the Mayor's description. On the first Sunday witness stood where the Salvation Army had their stand, and the police objected to his following the Army round, .the table that witness stood on was not placed on the footpath. Witness stood with his back to the mills, and his face to the water - His did not not an obstruction and had not received any complaints from the publio. , • Cross-examined: The vehicles nassed alone the fringe of the road," the rest of the road being taken un by the crowd at the meeting. Pr ruv V ' f' J; Williams (president of the' Prohibition League) deposed that he was present at the meeting in Quay-street on July W. Ho observed no , impediment to traffic whatever. He saw no one passing the meotbut noticed a great many wjeiug up to tog meeting,

Cross-examined The vehicles that went past traversed the "fringe of road not covered by the crowd. The Mayor (Mr. D. Goldie) said he did not recollect what passed at the interview to which Mr. Richardson referred. Still, he thought what Mr. Richardson had said was very probably what witness would have said. The proceedings against the defendant had not been instituted by either witness or the Council. Witness then read letters between Inspector Cullen and the town clerk, showing that the police had applied to the Council for legal assistance in the case. Legal assistance was provided for the polico by the City Council" when they (the police) considered it was necessary for the Conduct of any city by-law oases. Robert French (chairman of the Prohibition League), James Henry Muldoon (house and land agent), John Edward Taylor, William Speeding (hosiery manufacturer), also gave evidence for the defence. His Worship reserved his decision till Saturday morning.