GUILTY OF SEDITION

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 8734, 16 May 1914, Page 2

GUILTY OF SEDITION

CASE OF W. T. YOUNG JURY ADDS RECOMMENDATION TO MERCY. The re-trial of William Thomas Young, president of the Federation of Labour, on the charge of sedition, occupied tho Supreme Court yesterday, the proceedings being taken before Mr . Justice Hosking and a jury of twelve. The charge was as follows: That on Sunday. October 26th, 1913at the Basin Reserve, in the presence of a large crowd of Wellington waterside workers then on strike and others, in making a speech to the crowd, he did utter certain seditious words, to wit: —“I want to say that special constables are being called for; a number of them were marched to the Newtown depot last night. I want to say this, that if the police force of this country aro going to bo utilised—l know the individual police don’t want to bo used for tho purpose—but if the authorities of this country aro going to use them to suppress the working class, I will undertake —we will undertake—to mass in this city of Wellington 10,000 or 15,000 armed men ready to protect themselves as armed men. If we have got to fight the police force and the military, it has got to be done in style and effectually. It is a very easy matter indeed. There are ten or fifteen thousand men in support of you and to protect yon against the baton of the police authorities. If the employers are not prepared to-act in a conciliatory spirit, and if they put on scabs to work cargo, there will not he a’ship leaving this port, and if needs be there will not be a wharf for scabs to work on. Don’t you be afraid of them. If I have got to incite the multitude I will incite, them, and in a proper manner,” or words to tho like effect. Mr H. H. Ostler, Crown Law Officer, conducted the prosecution, and Mr T. M. Wilford, with Mr P. J. O’Bogan, appeared for tho defence. ' CAN THERE BE A SECOND CONVICTION? After the Registrar had read the indictment to the jury, a point was raised by Mr Wilford, who stated thar

subsection 4 of section 402 of the Crimes Act sot out that if a person had been already lawfully convicted, the /pica available to him was that of “formerly convicted.” ,Connsel asked that the Registrar should put in the information on which Young was previously convicted. It was different, he pointed out, in that it was a charge of inciting, whereas this was of sedition. Tho charge of inciting was laid under another statute. Ho would call Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M., to prove that tho whole of the evidence to be called in this case was the evidence called in the Magistrate’s Court, and on which Young was convicted. The evidence would really he less, because tho indictment had been amended since, the grand jury had found the bill. Those words were part of the evidence in the lower court, on the other charge. (The words referred to by Mr Wilford wore:—“lf a police constable uses his baton to yon, give him one back, and if one won’t do make it a double header.”) Young was convicter, and served his sentence, on a charge of inciting the public by this very speech. Mr Wilford contended that the Crown had no right to proceed. The decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Holland in no way affected the present charge- Holland ivas acquitted on , one charge, but had not been dealt with on the other charge for which he was indicted. The question had never been settled, where there was a retrial, whether a man was to be deprived of the right of stating, before pleading guilty or not guilty, that he had been formerly convicted. THE PRISONER’S POSITION. His Honour said that if the prisoner pleaded that ho had been formerly convicted, and if the court came to that conclusion, he had the right to his discharge. If the court concluded that he had not been formerly convicted, he had the right to plead and to stand his trial. Mr Wilford; “He has not been charged yet. I will ask the'Registrar to do that, and then it is for ns to put in our plea.” His Honour said he would make a note that Mr Wilford made bis application prior to the accused’s being charged—“though,” queried His Honour, “until he is charged, is he before tho court?”

Mr Wilford : “Has the Registrar the right to read that to the jury,

train—B p.m., 8.15 p.m. This is a close connection with steamer at Auckland. MONDAY. Napier and Gisborne, per Tarawera —4.20 p.m.. 4.35 p.m. Southern offices and Greymouith. Hokitika and Reefton, per Wahine—6.ls p.m., 6.30 p.m. Nelson and French Pass, per Pateena — 7.45 p.m., 8 p.m. Bicton. Blenheim, also the bays between Pie ton. Grail Bay and the Portage via Torea Neck (to connect with an oil launch at Picbon), per Maponrika —- 745 p.m., 8 p.m. FRIDAY. Articles for parcel poet for United States of America per Wißochra —3 p.m. Cook, Tahiti and Penrhyn Islands, also United States of America. Central America, West Indies, and Canada via San Francisco, also United Kingdom and Continent of Europe (due ban Francisco Juno 11th, due London June 21st), per Willochra—3 p.m., 3.30 p.m. Correspondence tor Continent of Europe must be specially addressed. Money-orders must be obtained two hours before the advertised time of closing the mails. jeylon, India, China, Japan, Straiti, Settlements. South Africa and Continent of Europe and United Kingdom, via Naples (due London June 28th), per Ulimaroa —3.30 p.m.. 4 p-m r Correspondence for United Kingdom must bo specially addressed. Money orders must bo obtained two hours before the advertised time of closing the mails. Australian States, also Lord Howe, Norfolk. New Hebrides Islands (due Sydney May 26th), per Ulimaroa—3.3o p.m., 4 p.m. Money orders must be obtained two hours before the advertised time of closing the mails.

The next best dispatch for the Continent of Europe will be via Naples, closing at Wellington, per UTlmaroa, on Friday, May 22nd, at 3.30 p.m. Mails for Australian States and South Africa dose at Auckland, per Mannka, at 4-.15 p.m., Monday. May 18th, and for Australian States, per Moeraki. from the Bluff, at 4 p.m., Monday, May 18lh.

The next best dispatch for Cook, Tahiti and Penrhyn Islands, also United States of _ America, Canada, Central America, will be via San Francisco, closing at Wellington, per Willochra. Friday, May 22nd, at ,3 p.m. A. P. DRYDEN. Chief Postmaster, Chief Post Office. Wellington, May ICth. 1911.

stating that the prisoner had pleaded not guilty?” His Honour; “You made no application before that.” Mr Wilford said ho would ask that the prisoner bo charged, when he would remain silent. Counsel would then lake section 403, when a plea of not guilty would ho entered, and the trial would bo proceeded with. His Honour; “1 will make a note that he lias been arraigned, and it is for him to plead. I will make a nolo for the Court of Appeal.” Mr Ostler said that tho practice for the last ten years had been to read the charge to the jury, and not to ask the prisoner to plead again. Hr Milford; “You have no objection ?” Hr Ostler: “No. I am anxious to see any rights your client has reserved,”

His Honour said ho would follow what was said to be the practice for the last ten years, without observation as to whether it was right or wrong—the prisoner was 'not called on to plead at the second trial. THE CROWN’S OBJECTION.

Mr Ostler stated that he did not agree with Mr Wilford’s statement of the facts—that tho prisoner had been previously convicted for using those words. Tho words relied on in tho lower court were merely: “If a police constable uses bis baton to you, give him one back, and if one won’t

do, make it a double header.” The rest of thei speech was used to give the setting to those words, and show their sense. It was expressly stated that tho rest of tho words were not relied on. It was on those grounds that Mr P. S. K. Macasscy (acting for tho Crown) asked leave to amend tho indictment by deleting tho words quoted, because Young had been convicted on them.

His Honour said ho had ruled that the prisoner was not to bo called on to plead. He asked what point was now before the court. .Mr Wilford said he wished to have Young charged so that there would bo no possibility of his being prejudiced. He did not contest Mr Ostler’s statement that the magistrate tried Young on certain words in the speech, but he pointed out that at tho previous trial the magistrate gave evidence that he took the whole of the words into consideration in convicting the accused. Mr Ostler; “That is so. Young is now charged so that ho can put in his plea of ‘formerly convicted.’ ”

Mr Wilford askod His Honour to record the fact that the prisoner had not' pleaded. His Honour: “The prisoner does not plead. In former days,”—ho added, ■with a emile—“it was the‘peine forte et dure’ ” —(a form of punishment imposed to extract a plea from a silent prisoner, one who was deemed “mute of malice”). Mr Wilford then formally entered the plea of “ previous conviction,” and placed the following contentions before the court:—

1. That the prisoner has been lawfully convicted of the crime charged in the count or counts to which such plea is pleaded. 2. That he has been previously convicted of the same offence with which he is now charged. 3. That the magistrate has convicted and sentenced the accused to a period of thre© months with hard labour for the speech which now forms the subject of a sedition charge. . 4. That the evidence upon which the magistrate convicted the prisoner is the same evidence which is to be preferred by the Crown at the present trial.

5. On the authority of “In re Simpson,” no man in a British country shall be imperilled twice for the same offence.

As a point apart from the plea, Mr Wjlford submitted that the Registrar of the Supreme Court had no right to place the indictment before the jury until the accused had been called upon to plead. His Honour asked Mr Wilford to prove tlie previous conviction. Mr Wilford intimated that he would do so by admission through the Crown Prosecutor.

His Honour rrlod that tho plea must be disposed of immediately, and he accepted the admission of the previous coilviction.

Evidence was given by DetectiveSergeant Cassells as to swearing the information against the and a copy of the conviction for inciting was put in. , Mr Wilford read evidence given at the previous trial by Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M. Counsel also stated, that the’decision in Holland’s case did not apply to the present case. In Holland’s case there were two speeches and two indictments, and on one ot these he could not he held to have been dealt with previously. CHARGED UNDER TWO ACTS. In replying to Mr Wiiford’s argument, Mr Ostler contended that there was one count only. The section, under which the accused was charged m the'lower court was section 68 of the Police Offences Act, in regard to inciting. If in. the lower court the accused could have been convicted of sedition, then he could plead “former conviction.” There was no distinction bobwoou Holland's caso and t-lio prosen-t one. The Court- of Appeal held that, notwithstanding that Holland had been acquitted by the magistrate, he was rightly convicted for sedition, by a jury, on tho very speech which contained the words in question. Air Wilford asked that His Honour should reserve liis decision on tho point ho had raised and allow the case to stand over in the meantime. THE CASE PROCEEDS.

This suggestion was accepted by His Honour, who, aitor adjourning tho court for half an hour, stated that ho had had an opportunity of reading and considering Holland’s case, and in his opinion tho decision in that case covered tho present case. Ho accordingly overruled Hr W Ilford's application, and tho case proceeded. Tho accused formally pleaded not guilty. Evidence was given as at the previous trial in regard to tho use of the vor-ds and tho conditions existing in the city at the time they were Utter-

ed. Mr Wilford formally objected to evidence as- to circumstances which occurred prior to tho alleged offence. His Honour overruled the objection, but at the same time reserved leave for Mr Wilford to appeal on tho point. The jury retired at 4.10 p.m., and returned at 5.30 with a verdict of guilty, and a strong recommendation to mercy.

Sentence waa deferred until the Appeal Court has decided tho legal points raised by Mr Wilford, and prisoner was allowed out on his own bail. Tho case will come before the Appeal Court in August next.