VERDICT OF GUILTY

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 8655, 13 February 1914, Page 4

VERDICT OF GUILTY

CHARGES AGAINST HOLLAND CASE REFERRED TO - COURT OF APPEAL. Hearing of the case in which Henry Holland, editor of tho “Maorilancl Worker” was charged on two counts with sedition, was proceeded with before His Honour the Chief Justice and a jury of twelve yesterday. The informations wore - as follows;—.

That-on October 26th, at the Basin Reserve, Wellington, ho uttered certain seditious ryords, to wit :

The waterside agreement was broken when -the' men ' were obliged to take a day oi£ when Mr Liverpool, Lord Liverpool, the gilded popinjay, the figurehead of capitalism in New Zealand landed here. And the same thing occurred when Sir Joseph 'Ward's Dreadnought came. I remind them (meaning the police) of the words used by mo in Broken Hill in Australia on the occasion when X was sentenced to two ye'ars’ imprisonment on a charge of sedition. I told tho minors “if they hit you with a baton, hit them with a pic’khandle and have tho pick at tho end of it.” Here is your opportunity. you John Hops (meaning tho police). They, the employers, want to give you a miserable eight bob a day, and the soul and clothes of a slave and Want yon to scab on labour, or words to the like effect.

That at Newtown Park, Wellington, on November 2nd, in the presence of a large crowd of waterside workers then, on strike, and others, in making a public speech to the crowd, he did utter certain seditious words, to wit;— Wellington .has seen what is unique in Australasia. You have a gatnng gun on the wharf fo-day, and there'is one on the turret of the Post Office, they tell us. when Massey’s cossacks come down upon us, I was going to say men, but I don’t want to be guilty pi libel. The 2000 men offering m the Waikato are heroes, because they will come fully armed, provided Mr Maesey gives them full protection. If free labourers are put on they will work with a revolver in their belts and & bludgeon alongside-them. I urge the navals present (meaning tho sailors from Hie Majesty’s ship Psyche, then lying in the port of .Wellington atoreeaid). when they are ordered to slmot tk> remember where their hlass interests lie. and to point their guns accordingly. The railway men should not carry free labourers. Let the trains rot and rust. The strike was not made by the working classes, but by the master classes, who. are pouring their armed hundreds into Wellington, not in the daylight, bus like thieves in tho might, coming utterly ashamed of the work they are under-, taking. They sneak in in the midnight hours, but old grey-haired women come out on the balconies and jeer at them as they pass. The railway men have said • they • are prepared to step the trains, the drivers can stop the carts, and the seamen the ships. Uni■formed police can deal a staggering blow by tearing-off-their-uniforms and ' standing by .the -watersidera. Wo are going to win, and by God we are going to do it, no matter what means we are going to use.

or fords to the like effect. Holland pleaded not guilty to both charges, and was defended by Mr T. M. Wilford and Mr P. J, O’Regan. Mr p. S. K. Macassey, Crown Law Officer. conducted the prosecution. The jury consisted of William Ryan (foreman), Christopher Aplin, junr., Frederick Platt, Charles Frederick Hills, Edward Martin, John Hunter, Hasten Rowell, Walter Goring Johnston, Horace Wensley Piper, Charles Hawson, William Reynolds Bailey, and Herbert Ryder Button. A. POINT RESERVED.

Mr Wilford mentioned that he proposed to argue two legal points. The first was that the second charge (which, by arrangement with, the prosecutor, was being heard with the'first) was in. law an incitement to strike and no more, and that it came under a different section. His Honour: “You mean that, supposing he spoke those words, they were not seditious?” Mr Wilford: “Yes, Your Honour.” As to the second point, Mr Wilford continued, section 24, subsection (g) of the Acts Interpretation Act, 1908, said that where an act or omission constituted an offence under more Acts or sections than one, the offender should be liable to be prosecuted and punished under any one of these Acts or sections, but should not he liable to be punished twice for the same offence. Counsel’s point was that the accused had been, charged with an orfence, with the words of the first indictment, under another section on which the Crown relied and had been acquitted by the magistrate. His Honour said, he doubted whether the point was a valid one, hut still it was sufficiently important to be reserved., On the second' indictment he would reserve leave to appeal on the ground that the words were not ca- • pable of being deemed seditious by the ' Mr Macassey pointed out that Holland was one of the leaders in the strike. ■ He explained' - the sections governing the charges, and referred to the disturbances that occurred during -the strike. The “specials” were brought down to preserve law and order. The jury had to consider whether the words? were used with an honest intention to show that the action of the Government was wrong, or whether they were used to incite to resistance. He contended that the words were intended to incite the strikers to use force. In the second indictment, there was a specific incitement to resort to violence and force. A verdict was sought on both indictments. THE TWO MEETINGS.

Evidence was first given by Detective Rawle, who stated that ho was on duty on the Basin Reserve on October 26th, when tho accused spoke to the crowd in such a way that all oould hear. Witness had not taken a note of the words used, but he gave his impressions of Holland’s statements in reference to Cord Liverpool, tho use of a pick-handle in resisting tho police, and the advice to the police to take off their uniforms. The report in the “Evening Post” was a correct report generally. The detective also gave evidence as to the speech in Newtown park, and stated that the accused appealed to any naval men present to remember their class interests if they were called out to shoot and to turn their guns accordingly. Holland had also said the railway stock should be allowed, to rot and rust before free .labourers were carried, and that the police could deal a staggering blow by standing in with the waterside workers. The “ Dominion” report of these utterances was substantially correct. The witness also gave evidence regarding the conditions in the city, and stated that just before the speech the crowd tore down the Basin Reserve gates: on October 30th there were two riots—one on Lambton quay and tho other in the Post Office square. Replying to questions by Mr Wilford,

the detective said his evidence was not an exacf account of Holland s woids, but was substantially correct. Air W'ilforcl pointed out that the witness had stated that Holland said, “ turn your guns accordingly,” but tho indictment and the newspapers used the word "point” instead of “turn.” The detective replied that ns there was so very little difference, and that there was a reasonable probability of his having made a mistake, ho would say that Holland might have said either “turn” or “point.” Air Wilford examined tho witness in detail as to the first speech. In regard to tho reference to Broken Hill, where according to Holland, ho had advised tho miners to retaliate with a pick-handle if hit by the police, Mr Wilford called the witness s attention to the words “ I will remind you. ’ Detective Rawle said his impression of tho speech was that it was advice, in a covert way, to those standing around. Although he was there> in an official capacity, ho maintained that it was possible to maintain a fair mind. Tho next/witness was Leo Stephen Fanning, a member of the editorial staff of tho “ Evening Post, who stated that he took, a note of portions- of Holland’s speeceh at the Basin Reserve. His report in the Post contained substantially tlio words used by Holland. Witness took notes of those portions of the speech which ho thought worth reporting, and they were not all itt by Mr Wittend, 'witness stated that he did not hare a verbatim report of the speech, hut his object was, to put tho matter fairIv before the public., J Arthur Vincent O’Brien, a reporter on the staff of tho “Dominion, stated that ho made a report from shorthand notes of the Newtown park meeting. The wor Is attributed to Holland were substantially those used_by him. Under cross-examination, the witness stated that he thought the Rev. Brainsby, who spoke at the park meeting, congratulated tho speakers on their moderation. It seemed to him that tlie reference To the men from Waikato being heroes was a gibe. Detective Lewis stated that the report which appeared in the Dominion” was substantially true. Ho could not swear that any particular words in the indictment were the exact words used hy Holland. STRIKE DISTURBANCES.

John Breen, ehipppmg clerk, gave evidence os to the rush which was made on. the Navua on October 24th by a mob armed with pieces., of wood. On that occasion he was struck on the head with a bottle. . Arthur Hardy Kitcbmg, also a shipping clerk, described the interference with workers on the. Defender bn October' 25th, when ho was attacked by a mah and given several blows. Mr Wilford, in his address to the jury, said the charge waa that Holland .used words to inculcate the most bitter antagonism to a particular class. Were the’ words capable of such constmotion? Counsel quoted the address of Mr Justice Cave in the Burns case, as to the view the jury sliould tako of the sedition charge. . Mr Wolford asked why the police did not engage certificated shorthand writers to tako down the exact statements and then produce them in court. If that was done and the words taken down by thrpe men, they would all bo the same. In regard to the reference to Lord Liverpool as “the gilded popinjay,” etc., counsel said, “It may be’ very naughty, very wicked and rude, but it is not sedition.” Was it sedition to say that the watersiders had to take a day eg without pay when the Dreadnought . arrived ? There would bo no free speech if that was sedition. The only charge that could be dragged in was that for which accused, got two years in Australia and which he mentioned to the crowd, and it was brought in so that ho could get another two years. The second charge was nothing more nor loss than an invitation to men to strike—-espec-ially railway men. It was no crime to ask men to strike if they were not .subject to an award, and the railway workers were not subject to any award. The phrase, “let . tho _ trains rot and rust” was nofc an incitement to violence. Counsel described the case as the outcome of newspaper sensationalism.

■Summing up. His Honour said there was no evidence that any modifying words were used after the reference to hitting with a pick-handle with a pick at the end of it. Speaking of the second charge, His Honour asked if a man, because he did not belong to a trade union, was' to be denied the use of the railway. The general lines of the summing-up were similar to that in Hunter’s case. THE JURY’S VERDICT.

The jury retired at 3.40 p.m. and returned shortly before 6 o’clock. The foreman announced that a verdict of guilty had hoen arrived at on - the first count, and that on the second co’ant they were unanimous in finding the accused, guilty of sedition in his reference to the naval men.

The ' points mentioned hy Mr "Wilford at the commencement of the case were reserved, and Holland was released in his own recognisance of £IOO ■until the sitting of tho Court of Appeal on April 120th.