GUILTY OF RIOTING

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21253, 5 August 1932, Page 13

GUILTY OF RIOTING

VERDICT AGAINST FOUR MEN RESULT OF SECOND TRIAL JUDGE DEFERS SENTENCE Four men, concerning whom a jury had disagreed at the criminal sessions last May, were found guilty before Mr. Justice Herdman in the Supreme Court yesterday on charges of taking part with James Henry Edwards and others in a riot. The accused were Oswald Bourbeau, aged 51, Canada, waterside worker; William John Budd, aged 35, England, seaman; John William McCorkindale, aged 37, New Zealand, miner; and Albert William Searles, aged 26, England, seaman. There were alternative charges against each man of taking part in an unlawful assembly, all the charges arising out of the disturbances in Queen Street on the night of April 14. Budd, Bourbeau and McCorkindale were represented by one counsel and Searles by another. Evidence for the defence of Searles was called when the Court resumed yesterday morning, Leonard Thomas Buxton, Roman Catholic priest, said he knew Searles as a man of good character. Herbert Roy Parlane, telegraphist, described incidentf. that occurred inside the Town Hall at the time accused said he was there. Inconsistencies Alleged Counsel for Searles said there were serious inconsistencies in the evidence of police officers. There were even contradictory statements regarding Searles' raovements that night. On the other hand, ac- ■ cused had told a perfectly straightforward story and by his knowledge of various incidents, tallying with those described • by an independent witness, proved that he had been actually inside the. Town Hall when the rioting was taking place. The Crown Prosecutor said accused had been positively identified by four police officers and had actually been arrested with a piece of timber in his hands. Accased had said he had gone to the Town Hall with the City Central unemployed, but there was no definite evidence to show that he had been inside the hall before his arrest. Counsel submitted that Searles had been with the City Central unemployed throughout the rioting. Accused said he had left the meeting to join his wife and take his mother-ic-law for a walk, whereas his mother-in-law had stated that she had trouble with her feet and did very little walking. Judge's Summing Up Counsel for the other three accused said in each of the three cases there was 'the unsupported evidence of one police witness. Owing to the chaos that existed on the night of the riot it was possible for the most experienced police officer to make a mistake. Summing up, His Honor said it had been proved that rioting had occurred and s the jury had to decide whether any of the four men participated in it. Although the accused Bourbeau denied assaulting a police officer, lie admitted that he himself had been struck. It was for the jury to decide why Bourbeau was struck. Budd and McCorkindale had both been clearly identified. Against Searles there was the evidence of four police officers and it was hardly conceivable that they had any doubts about the matter. The jury returned after a retirement of about two hours with verdicts of guilty against ail four accused on the rioting charges. The accused were remanded for sentence. His Honor released the jurymen from further duty during the present - sessions.