PROBATION GRANTED

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 8738, 21 May 1914, Page 2

PROBATION GRANTED

CASE OF EDWARD HUNTER SPEECH A MATCH TO PERISHED POWDER. Tn tho Supremo Court yesterday, Edward Hunter, who had been convicted of sedition, was admitted by His Honour Air Justice Hoskiug to twelve months’ probation. Mr T. M. Wilford (who appeared on behalf of tho prisoner) said ho desired to ask that this case bo dealt with in a particular way. Prisoner was twen-ty-eight years of age, and was a married man with four children. Hiis Honour; “I do.not think that is any excuse or any reason why the punishment should bo alleviated. The theory seems to bo that a married man may commit crime with impunity and that those not married should be punished.”

Mr Wilford said he merely wished to place before His Honour the l full pos.tion. The prisoner came to Wellington as a delegate from tho West Coast to attend a meeting in connection with tho settlement of the strike. He was not, in the strike, an official in any shape or form.

His Honour; ‘That is, not in Wellington.”

Mr Wilford: “Yes, Your Honour.” His Honour: “He was one on the West Coast.”

Mr Milford: “A secretary, I behove.” Prisoner had a genuine belief that there was something wrong that ho might be able to help to pul right. He asked that His Honour' soo that tho punishment should bemob as Would fit the crime. One of the loaders of tho party (Robert Somplo) had been bound over in the sum of £IOOO to keep tho peace. Idas Honour: “I am not familial with tho particulars, and so am unable to appreciate what lod tho court to that decision. . . . Probably the punishment was made to fit the crime.” A FIRST OFFENDER. Mr Wilford: ‘ ‘Tho sedition charge was dropped.” Nothing had occurred by reason of tho prisoner’s speech. He admitted that tho consequences of a speech were not legally to bo taken into consideration. Under tho First Offenders Probatioh Act tho prisoner was a first offender. The offence of which, the prisoner bod been found guilty was not an olfonco far which probation might not be granted, li this wos such a serious offence, thou it would have been put as one for which probation should not be granted. Punishment for sedition- was luted at two years’ imprisonment, while tho punishment for such offences as grievous bodily harm or personal violence woe four or five times tho penalty set for tho offence of which tho prisoner had been found guilty. There was no bettor deterrent than to order a prisoner to come up for sentence when called Upon. Those which had lately been before the court were the first offences of this kind that had occurred in this country. Previously there had been on absolute absence of any charge of this nature against anybody, and this young! man, who had mode one speech, that could not be defended, was not, ho took it, going to be made an example of for the rest of New Zealand. Tho leaders of the strike hod been dealt with by the court. This young man was a more delegate, and tho jury had asked that His Honour deal mercifully with him. HIS HONOUR’S DECISION.

Addressing the prisoner, Hjs Honour said the crime of which he had boon found guilty, of speaking seditious words, rendered him liable to imprisonment, with hard labour, for two years. His Honour had listened to wbat Mr Wilford had oaid with attention, and, he hoped, for tho purpose of making the application of his words to tho case, in hand. He thought, under the circumstances, that the proper punishment would he to admit prisoner to probation. He was not'disposed to order him to come up for sentence when called upon. He was going to make tho order on speeial conditions, as follows: (1) It was not seditious libel of which prisoner had been convicted. Seditious libel was calculated to ho more permanent in its effect than words; (2) prisoner had already been bound over for a period of six months, which had not expired, to keep the peace in respect of tho same words; (3) prisoner had been committed for trial of tho court since December last, and had undergone two trials; (4) His Honour was assured prisoner was not one of tho leaders of the strike, so, from that point of view his words would not carry the same weight as those of others. Another consideration was that tho words which prisoner was convicted of using wore uttered at the close of tho strike. When prisoner threw his match the powder had well-nigh perished. His Honour said that the words uttered were directed rather ;to tho incitement of the strikers on the West Coast than to tho assembly in Wellington, and the words wore probably Jess calculated to result in any action than they would have been had they been directly inciting the men in Wellington, And, last of all, a matter to which His Honour had given very great attention, was the fact that the jury which found prisoner" guilty brought in a rider in the following words: “On account of the prisoner being carried away with his feelings at the time, and not, perhaps, realising the seriousness of the words, wo give a strong recommendation to mercy.” Mr Wilford, 'continued His Honour, had said that prisoner was a young man who was convinced that there were wrongs to bo remedied. They were all convinced of that, probably. Perhaps tho charge might be -a lesson to prisoner that if he sought to redress wrongs he would have to do so by lawful means, and not by inciting to violence and illegal methods. Prisoner was admitted to probation for a period of twelve months, and an additional condition of probation was that he should neither write nor speak seditious words during the period of probation.