SUPREME COURT

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 8647, 4 February 1914, Page 4

SUPREME COURT

STRIKE TRIALS TAVO JURIES UNABLE TO AGREE Further cases arising out of the recent strike were dealt with in the Supreme Court yesterday, before His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout). _ BREAKING. A' BARRICADE. Alfred Jansen, AVilliam Barker, and Robert Stephens wore placed m «ie dock to answer a charge that on October 25th, at AVellington, they did wilfully destroy or damage a barricade, valued- at £l2, the property of the Harbour Boad, and did thereby commit mischief. Stephens pleaued guilty, and the other two men elected to stand their trial. Air P. &■ KAlacassey, Crown Law Officer, conducted the prosecution, and Air P. J. O’Regan appeared for the accused men. Mr Alacassey, in addressing tho jury, said that tho offence charged took place the day after the strike commenced. A barrier had been erected by tho Harbour Board, and in a rush for tho x>ertion of the wharf where tho Defender was being worked, the barricade was pulled down, by the accused men, with others. AVilliam AV. Alaunsell, employed by the Harbour Board, who gaye evidence as to having erected the barricade between tho railway wharf and J shed, said he saw, the barrier pulled dow'n by a crowd of men and thrown into the sea. , James Alarchbanks, engineer to the Harbour Board, and Sergeant Lcwin also gave evidence. The latter stated that Barker was throwing timber into the harbour, and the other tivo men were near the barrier. Constable Lumber stated that he .saw ’Jansen, Barker, and Stephens taking the principal part in throwing the timber into the harbour. Under .crosstexanxination he stated that a number of men came to the Defender to induce the crew' to knock off work. Ho saw Jansen endeavouring to pacify these men; had it not been for Jansen there would have been some difficulty in getting the strikers off the vessel. ■

Air O’Regan said the accused appeared to bo respectable working men. ■A number of the strikers assisted tho police in getting rid of the crowd. Tho whole thing was over in a few minutes, and tho accused did not anticipate that they would be charged with this offence.

Alfred Jansen, in his evidence, stated that he did not go on board the Defender, but tried to induce the strikers not to go on board. When he went to the barricade it had been pulled down. He denied having thrown any timber into the harbour; he touched nothing. His Honour pointed out to the witness that when ho was with a crowd which was doing an unlawful thing, he was liable for the acts of the crowd.

William Barker, who emphasised that he “was” a waterside worker, stated that he was present at the gathering, because ho was a striker, and was with his mates, Sand wanted to do-what ho could to help the strike. “I was quite in sympathy with the men who pulled down the barrier,” ho explained. “I did not take part in it, because I could not get at the barrier.” (Laughter.) August Hans, a carpenter ■ employed by the Harbour Board, stated that he saw Jansen, who was standing along_ side a wall and did not assist in breaking the barrier. Jansen shouted out to witness and the . other carpenters, “Boys, there’s going to be trouble j pick up your tools.” His Honour, in summing up, said there was no doubt that there had been, a wanton destruction of property. He pointed out that if a hundred people , set out to demolish some property, and only one of the did so, all the hundred were guilty. It was not necessary that a man should take part by putting his hand to the work of destruction. Why did Jansen advise the carpenters to pick up their tools ? Because the harrier was going to be pulled down. As to Barker, the' evidence was more precise, because there. were constables who swore to seeing him throw timber intb the water. BARKER GUILTY. After an hour’s retirement, the jury returned a verdict of guilty in the case of Barker, and not guilty in the case of Jansen. The latter was accordingly discharged. Barker was remanded till Saturday for sentence. An application for ball was refused.

WATERLOO QUAY RIOT,

John Edward Harrington was charged (1) that on October 30th he took part in. a riot at Waterloo quay, and '2) that h© assaulted certain (special constables in the execution of their duty. Accused pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr O’Regan. Mr Macassey said that on the date in question a number of special constables were in the Post and Telegraph Stores, and a crowd entered the yard and stoned them out. The accused was seen by the police with a pistol in his hand, calling out, “Shoot the scabs.” The accused and ten others went up to a photographer and threatened to throw him and his camera into the harbour, but Sergeant McOlono prevented the assault.

Sergeant McGlono, in his evidence, stated that the accused followed the special constables;- and shouted, “Shoot the b— b ds, tho b scabs.” There -appeared to be a revolver in his hand, and he was holding it up over his head. The crowd wore throwing stones, lumps of wood and iron. Constables Fallon and Gumming were injured by missiles, lit least three men besides tho accused had revolvers. In reply to Mr O’Regan, the sergeant said he would not swear that it was a revolver that the accused had in his hand. He was not mistaken as to the identity of the man. Constable Edo stated that the accused was verv excited, and was carrying a small black revolver, which he was holding above his head. Ho cried out, “Como on, wo will shoot the b- scabs.” In answer to Mr O’Regan, witness said he was certain, the accused was the man. ALIBI SET UP. Mr O’Regan said that two reputable witnesses were going to swear as to the accused’s movements at the time of the riot, to show that he was not there. The constable said he would swear that the man was there. Detective-Sergeant Cassells gave evidence as to arresting accused, who said ha thought he was at home at the

time of the riot. He said, “It (the riot) was in tho afternoon, wasn t it. AVitness informed him that it was in tho morning. Accused-said he did not go there, hut that he was in the Pcs. Office square from 9 in the morning till 5 each day. ‘ , Evidence as to the arrest was also given by Detective Alason. Air O’Regan, addressing the jury, said that this was a case of mistaken identity, pure and simple. The man who flourished the revolver must havo been one who closely resembled the accused; tho police could have made a mistake in the excitement of the moment. The accused stated in evidence that he was a fireman. At the time of tho strike lie had just arrived from Invercargill, and was in quest of work. He arrived in AA’ellington on October 26th, and staved with Airs O’Connell, No. 4, Charlton avenue. He left home about 7.30 a.m. on the 30th and went aboard the Alaori to look for . work. He staved on hoard till about 9 a.m. On coming off he walked through Grey street to Lambtou quay, proceeding as far as Quinton’s corner. He returned home and remained there from about 10 iv.m. to 4.45 p.m., when he went °* To His Honour, the accused stated that he had never had a revolver in his life. James Braithwaite, a fireman on. the Alaori, stated that the accused was on board that vessel from 8 to 9 a.m. on the day in question. A\ itness sa/w tho .moused at the Duke of Edinburgh corner at about a. quarter to 10, and saw him go up AVillis street. Airs Alice O’Connell, the accused’s landlady, stated that on October 30th ho came home about 10 a.m., and went upstairs. He could not have come downstairs without her knowing it. Ho only came down for dinner and went back until teatime, when he went out. Air O’Began submitted that the evidence was overwhelmingly in favour of the contention that accused had been mistaken for someone else.

His Honour, in summing up, said there was ample time for the accused to have travelled from the hotel to the scene of the riot, which was at 10.30 o’clock. Was Mrs O’Connell correct in stating that what she observed of the accused’s movements took place on Thursday, October 30th? She had said ho was arrested on a Thursday, whereas he was arrested on a Friday. Was it likely that the accused thought that the affair did not take place in the forenoon, but in .the afternoon? He said he was in the Square, hut if what Mrs O’Connell said was correct, ho was telling a lie. Were they to set aside the strong testimony of the police—two constables and a sergeant? Mr O’Regan had suggested that the police were anxious for a conviction. His Honour did not know why they should he anxious. One officer was from Dunedin and the other from Feilding, and they had not been injured. If they were to believe the evidence of the police, there was no doubt that accused was taking a main pant in the riot. If he was calling upon others to commit an assault and was following Up, he was taking part in a riot, even though he did not throw a. stone himself The jury, after having been out for ■more than four hours, announced about half-past 7 o’clock that they were unable to agree. His Honour ordered that a new trial be held this ’sessions. The accused was allowed but in his own recognisance Of £SO until Monday, when he is to surrender himself for re-trial. IN THE P. AND T., YARD. Samuel Thompson, for whom Mr A. Dunne appeared, was charged (1) that on October 30th he took part in a riot on Waterloo quay, and (2) that ho assaulted certain special constables in the execution of their duty. “ I hnvo only known about one charge before, and now there is a second charge,” said the accused, when asked to plead. : His Honour pointed ' out that there were two indictments. It was lawful to put the second charge in, because it appeared on the face of the evidence given in the court below. “ Not guilty, anyhow,” said the accused.

Mr Macassey said that the accused went into the yard of the Post and Telegraph Stores, and asked where the captain was. He clapped his hands, and called on the mob to coma in. There was no question of identity in this case. The accused hacl admitted that he was the man when speaking to another person, and when ho was arrested he did hot deny the charge. Victor Thomas Dymock, who was acting as a special constable on October 30th, stated that he was on duty in Waterloo quay, between 10.30 and 11 a.m. a crowd came up and stood outside the fence. The accused walked in and asked to see the “ skipper ” of the “ specials.” A regular constable went to put him out, and another foot constable and a mounted,man endeavoured to shift him, but h© would' not go. Instead he clapped his hands and called to the crowd to come in, which they did, after pulling down a chain of fencing. Sticks, ■ bottles, and , other missiles were thrown by the crowd. On a subsequent occasion witness asked the accused if he was the man .who came into the P. and T. Stores yard, and ho said that he went there with two other men.

In answer to air Dunne, witness stated that the accused entered by the nortli gate; tho crowd came from the south end. The accused used no threats, violence, or bad language. Witness did not see him assault anybodyHenry Percy Taylor, of Kiwitea, who was also acting as a special constable at the time, gave corroborative evidence. William George Shannon, of Feilding, formerly a special constable, gave evidence as to being with Dymock when the latter accosted the accused. Dymock said, “Aro you the man that called to tho crowd to com© in ?” • Accased said, “ No, I did not call to the crowd, hut to two or three of them. Constable Eckford, of Dunedin, stated that he was on duty at the Post and Telegraph yard on October 31st. There were two men with the accused in the yard when witness saw him. Constable Fallon, of Dunedin, stated that he saw tho accused with two other men coming down the yard. Witness asked them what they n anted, *md the accused said he wanted to see the leader of the “specials. He refused to go out until he had seen him. Atter the crowd came in, witness was struck on the back of the head with some hard substance, causing a wound an inch and e quarter in length. Detective-Sergeant Cassells stated that he charged the accused on November 28th, and he made no reply. The accused’s occupation was that of a waterside worker. DID NOT USE VIOLENCE. Mr Dunne said that the accused went into the yard to speak to the

men in an ordinary way, and put the strike position before them. It was hardly likely that he wanted to make a row when ho went in alone. Mere presence in a riot was not sufficient to justify a conviction.. Giving evidence on his own behalf, the accused stated that, he kept away from the crowd. Constable Fallop rode up to him and at the same time a foot constable approached. Witness made a complaint about the mounted constable’s style of riding, and fhe foot constable told the accused to sot out. While ho was making to go out, the crowd came in. He remembered giving a salute to a fellow on a truck, but he denied calling out-to the croud to come in. Ho did not take any part in the rush. Counsel: “Do you approve of these violent methods S'”

Accused: “1 don’t know that 1 do approve of them ” Cross-examined by Mr Macassey, accused said he had been about five minutes in the yard before the fence was broken clown. He could not see the crowd from where ho was, but only the people in the trucks. “1 went to talk them over,” said the accused iu answer to a question by His Honour as to the reason for his presence in the yard. He added that ho was on a “roving comnrissiou,” end was not sent by the uniou. it was not oorroct that he said to the mounted constable that he would not go out till he had seen the leader of the “specials.” Alfred John Wakefield, recently employed in the Post and Telegraph Department, stated that he was in the stores yard on the morning of the trouble, doing electrical work for the department. He saw the accused walk to one of the mounted men, who referred him to the captain. r J he first man ho saw interfere with the accused was a constable on a horse, who swerved his mount against the ac-‘ cused. The latter said ho did not want any trouble. Witness did not hoar the mounted man order che accused out; neither did ha hear accused cry out, “Com© on, boys, ’ nor see him clap his hands. He put one hand up when the head of the horse was brought against his shoulder. Tho accused spoke very quietly, and did not use any violence. EVIDENCE AS TO CHARACTER. Thomas Smith, secretary of the Wellington Working Men’s Club, stated that he had known the accused ler about seven years. He had a veiy good character, and was a very re spectable man. 1 : Mr Macassey remarked that no thing was alleged against the accused’s character.

Edward Grindley, labour foreman for the Union S.S. Company, stated that he had known the accused tor about six years. Ho-was a hardworking man. His Honour, in summing up, explained what constituted an unlawful assembly and a riot. . There was no doubt this was a riot. Special constables were driven off or assaulted, missiles were /thrown, and fences broken down. They could imagine a man being in a riot who had nothing to do with it. That was Mot so in the present case at all. • If they believed the evidence of the special constables and the police, it was conclusive. If accused did what Dymock described, he was taking part in a riot. His Honour added that -the jury wero not bound, to .find the accused guilty on both counts. .

Between 8 and 9 p.fii. the jury returned and sought a direction from His Honour as to ‘ whether a person who was present when a riot was taking place was guilty of taking part in a riot.

His Honour replied in, the negative. Ho instanced the case of the witness Wakefield, who was present, but who could not be held to have been taking part in a riot. They had the evidence, however, of the Crown witnesses as to the accused waving to strikers outside and a riot immediately taking place. Unless they were to hold_ that the Crown witnesses . were committing deliberate perjury, they must hold that the accused took part in a riot. As in the case of Harrington, the jury had come to no decision after the expiration of the necessary-four hours, and at 9.30 p.m. the foreman intimated that there was no chance of their agreeing. A , new trial was ordered for Monday, and the accused was allowed to go free until that time in his own recognisance of £SO.