NOT GUILTY

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 8652, 10 February 1914, Page 8

NOT GUILTY

WATERLOO QUAY RIOT

RE-HEARING OF HARRINGTON’S CASE.

lu the ,=.u pro me Court yesterday the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) was engaged in the re-hearing of one of the strike cases in which the jury had disagreed last week. The case was that against John Edward Harrington, charged with haring taken part in a riot on Waterloo quay on October 30th, and with having on the same date assaulted certain special constables in the execution of their duty. Mr P. S. IC. Macassey, Crown Law Officer, conducted the prosecution and Mr P. J. O’Regan appeared for the accused. The case arose out of a disturbance which occurred on the morning following the arrival of a number of special constables from Palmerston North, the crowd invading the yard of the Post and Telegraph Stores and chasing the mounted special constables out. The accused, it was alleged, had a revolver and was calling out’, “Shoot the b—— scabs, the b h ds.” He was also stated to have been one of those who threatened to throw a photographer and his camera into the sea. The defence was an alibi.

Evidence was given as. at the previous hearing. In addition Mr O’Regan called witnesses to show that the accused was clean-shaven on October 27th, evidence to this effect being given . by John Woods, a clerk in the employ of the Harbour Board, and Miss Mabel Rosson. (According to the police evidence the man who was apprehended had a small moustache.)

The foreman of the jury asked how the accused had obtained permission on October 30t(h to pass over the wharf to the s,s. Maori to look for work.

“I just walked on to the wharf,” replied Harrington. “Nobody tried' to stop' me.”

Mr O’Regan, in addressing the jury, said he did not desire to make any imputation against the pokes, and as far as the detectives were concerned, he must pay a tribute to the fairness with which Detectives Cassells and Mason had given their evidence. After referring to the possibility of the officers having made a mistake during the excitement, counsel pointed out that the accused’s landlady had given evidence that on the day of the riot ho came in at 10 in the morning, and stayed home all day, that, he was not wearing a moustache, and that he was not wearing a grey coat, but a blue suit.

In the course of his summing-up, His Honour said it had not been disputed that there was a riot. The evidence of Woods and Miss Eosson did not deal with the alibi, but rather with identification. His Honour reviewed the evidence of the police, and referred to the accused’s own statement that the last time ho shaved was on October 23rd.

The jury retired at 4 p.m. and returned in half an hour with a verdict of “not guilty.” Harrington was accordingly discharged. i