CITY RIOT SEQUEL

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21248, 30 July 1932, Page 10

CITY RIOT SEQUEL

CHARGE AGAINST EDWARDS disagreement of JURY NEW TRIAL ORDERED ACCUSED RELEASED ON BAIL The trial of James Henry Edwards, aged 40, canvasser, on a charge of taking part in a riot in Queen Street on April 14 was concluded before Mr. Justice Herdman in the Supreme Court last evening. After a retirement of four hours, the jury failed to reach an agreement and a new trial was ordered. Another constable who saw Edwards at the head of the unemployed procession in Queen Street was Constable J. A. du Temple. Later Edwards, with a megaphone, mounted the parapet in front of the Town Hall, and after he had shouted to the crowd the rioting commenced in earnest. He denied that Edwards was bleeding when be was on tho parapet. Similar evidence was given by Constable L. Hunt, who said he heard Edwards call out to tho crowd, " Get stuck into the "I do not remember ever having seen a more disorderly crowd than that night, said Detective-Sergeant P- J. Doyle. Accused Gives Evidence Edwards' counsel suggested that the case had been given a degreo of prominence that it hardly deserved, although it must bo admitted that the incidents of the night were a disgrace to any city. Edwards was attempting to pacify the crowd when ho wa3 struck down, and he afterwards counselled the crowd not to use violence. The accused, in evidence, said he was a Londoner by birth. For long he had been associated with tho Labour movement, and had been spokesman for the unemployed to Ministers of the Crown and other prominent persons. He admitted shouting to-the procession, "Shall we go to slave camps ?" and " Shall we fight for our wives and kids 1" The methods of "fighting" he meant were demonstrations to public men and charitable aid boards, demonstrations everywhere and anywhere. It was certainly not his intention to create strife and trouble. He thought it advisable to have tho procession in tho middle of the street because he had found tramwaymen more patient than motorists. When ho saw trouble starting at the Town Hall he ran forward to appeal to the crowd not to attempt to get in, but he was immediately clubbed down from behind. Ho tried to attract tho crowd to the balustrade, and later bis injury was attended to by two St. John Ambulance, men. Communist Party Member

In cross-examination,' Edwards said ho was a member of the Communist Party, but a comparatively new member and not ono of the leaders. He had addressed three of their meetings, but was not yet considered to'bo'sufficiently versed in the philosophy of " Communism.'' Ho' accepted the position of a'recognised leader of the unemployed. He was not' a" member of a labour union; but it was not a part of Communist aims to undermine all the influence of unions. Witness denied that the Labour Defence Loague was organised on the lines of an overseas Communist document that the Crowu Prosecutor produced. " You might as well reetd to rrie the French revolution and ask me if I agree with it," said Edward?. "My Communism I got by experience, not by reading literature. I have always told our people that the police arp part of our class, and not our enemies." The fact that the directions in the literature produced recommended interfering with tram traffic and overturning vehicles was merely a coincidence. Witness contradicted most of the evidence of the taxi-driver who took him to the v Town Hall. He knew that an attempt would be made to hold him responsible for the men going mad. Acting on the advice of friends, he went away after midnight, and all attempts to trace him failed. He had done nothing buf. try to help, but he knew that some scapegoat would have to be found. He was prepared to contradict all the police evidence that suggested he incited to violence. He was struck only once. Edwards admitted that twice before he had been in trouble in connection with disorder. Witnesses for Defence A former superintendent of the National Mutual Life Association, David Todd, described an incident in Shortland Street the day prior to the riot. In his opinion Edwards prevented serious trouble there. The secretary of the United Furniture Trades Union, Albert 11. Dickson, said lie had seen a man with his hands raised trying to stop the crowd from rushing the Town Hall. This man was knocked down by the police. Similar evidence was given by Harry J. Dickson, who said ho recognised the man struck as Edwards. Harold Norman Agnew, hotel waiter, said that when tho crowd rushed up Airedale Street for weapons Edwards tried to get them to follow him to tho balustrade. " I carried Edwards into the middle of the crowd, where three or four ladies took him from me," said Henry George Samways, labourer. He said that Edwards appealed to the crowd to go away from the Town Hall door, and wanted them to go round to the parapet. Counsel for Edwards said tho jury must be irresistibly driven to the conclusion that the story told by Edwards and his witnesses was tho true account of what happened. The Crown Prosecutor said many accounts had been given by witnesses of inciting words used by Edwards, and if tho jury accepted only ono of these tho case was proved. Edwards had admitted suggesting to the crowd to take batons from the police, and it was ludicrous to explain as he did tiiat he intended this to be done without iWolence. Judge's Summing-up In summing-up His Honor pointed out that tho most dangerous type in tho community might bo, not the man who was openly violent, but tho "man who was fluent with his tongue, and, perhaps, saturated with undesirable literature, and who influenced his fellows to take part in such proceedings as those of April 14.. There was ample evidence that Edwards was associated with the procession that night and amplo evidence that the rioting was not a sudden explosion, but premeditated. In such circumstances as arose the police wore fully justified in using their batons, and if Edwards did, as he said ho did, urge these people to take the batons from the police, "and use no violence," then ho was undoubtedly encouraging a riot. What right had he, when the police were discharging their duty, to encourage his men to seize thenbatons ? When tho jury returned to announco a disagreement the Crown Prosecutor moved for a new trial. This was ordered L>y His Honor, who fixed Monday as a tentative date. Bail for accused was renewed..