DR LISTON’S CASE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18557, 18 May 1922, Page 5

DR LISTON’S CASE

THE SEDITION CHARGE, VERDICT OF NOT. GUILTY. “ GUILTY OF GRAVE INDISCRETION.” “A SENSIBLE EIDER.” demonstrators rebuked. THE JUDGE’S THREAT. (Pea United Press Association.) AUCKLAND. May 17. The charge against Bishop Liston cl using seditious language was resumed today. Dean Liston, a parish priest, gave evidence that he heard the speech in question. It did not give him the impression of suggesting disorder, disloyalty or sedition. The Bishop mentioned several names of those who hod died for Ireland.. He mentioned several numbers without giving any names of those who had died in several ways. The last on the list, he said, were those killed by. foreign troops. Witness understood, the reference was particularly to three priests alleged to have been murdered by the auxiliaries in Ireland. It had no reference at all, in witness’s mind, to the 1916 Easter rising. Alfred Hall Skelton, solicitor, describing himself as an Anglican, in giving evidence referred to the conversation he had with Bishop Liston before the speech in question was delivered. Mr V. R. Meredith (for the Crown), objected that this was irrelevant. That interview must have occurred seven months ago. His Honor said he had serious doubts about the admissibility of this as evidence, but was prepared to admit it rather than exclude it, when it might throw a light on the issue. Witness said he was delivering a series of lectures in the country. Bishop Liston said he should be careful not to sayanything likely to cause friction between different sections of the community. Witness denied that the Bishop sent for him because he was getting over the edge in his (Mr Skelton’s) Town Hall speech. •lames O’Brien, timber merchant gave evidence that from a personal interview with Bishop Liston he was convinced the Bishop was as loyal as himself, and a strong supporter of Irish Free Rule. This closed the case for the defence and counsel then addressed the court.

In .summing up, Mr Justice Stringer said,: “If the jury remembered the report was published in the Herald of Saturday. The Mayor no doubt assumed the report to be true, and he lodged, and had printed, a protest that was circulated throughout the land, and< a storm of protest arose. He agreed also with counsel for the Crown that it was almost equally unfortunate that, notwithstanding this protest having been published before the explanation had been obtained, the Bishop should still have re framed from replying. He did so under advice, and could not be held responsible, but there could be no doubt,»he thought, that even after the protest had been made, and the comments had appeared, if the Bishop had given an explanation, and had shown at any rate that in he thought 'the •most 1 vital parts of the speech passages had been omitted that altogether altered the sense, if it had not allayed public feeling it would almost certainly have prevented proceedings being initiated. It was difficult, he felt, for the jury to approach the case with that judicial calm they might have observed if the question had not been ventilated so freely up to _ the time the proceedings were formally initiated. Sedition was a serious thing. The term was not applied to foolish utterances on various subjects, political, religious, or racial. There must be behind the words an intention to stir up strife or disaffection among the people. It was not contended in this case that anything against the Government or the King was intended. The contention of the Crown was that the words used on this occasion were calculated and intended tostir up strife among the people, and to set one class against another. That was the question which the jury had to determine. They had to be satisfied that the language used was intended to have that effect. In the first part of the speech, whatever one might think of it, if it were a question of taste, it was necessary to apply a very different criterion. It was not a question of taste in a case of this kind. The question was whether it was ‘Seditious. He must confess, though the ipatter was for the jury, that it did not seem to him if this. had stood alone that any seditious intention could reasonably _ be attributed to it. It was spoken of things which had happened 40 or 50 years ago. and was spoken of as historical events. That being so, it,seemed to him rather far-fetched to suggest that the mere mention of it to an audience mostly of Irishmen involved an intention to stir up strife among _ the people of New Zealand.” Then, said his Honor, they came to what must be recognised as the crucial part of the allegation of seditious speech, the passage which referred to closer history and to those “murdered by foreign troops.” It Was in respect of that that there was a serious contradiction of evidence. The jury would have to make up their minds what were the words actually used. If they came to the conclusion that thev were the words' stated by the Bishop to nave been used by him it put a very different complexion on the passage. The reference was particularly to the allegation about “murdered by foreign troops.” Of course it was admitted that there was a reference to the “glorious Easter.” The Bishop apparently was proud, and asked his audience to join him in being proud, of the men who died in this rebellion. In the first place the jury had to remember that in matters relating to the so-called Irish rebellion very different considerations had to be applied from those of a rebellion in the ordinary sense of the word. There had -been a great many rebellions in Ireland, and it was reasonable to suppose that Irishmen considered that those who died in fruitless 'rebellions were entitled to respect, -because they died not for themselves but in the endeavour to free Ireland from what was considered oppression. The passage in the speech with regard to the list was the most important, for as it stood in the indictment it would he open ■ for the jury to say it was exceedingly provocative, and calculated to cause disaffection and ill-will. If the words actually uttered were as stated by the Bishop, however, it put quite a different complexion on the matter. There was no doubt, ho thought, that the people killed by the “Black-and-Tans” were in law murdered. That was recognised by the British Government itself, so, that if the Bishop’s reference was to be interpreted as referring solely to the “Black-and-Tans” and reprisals it was stating what was the actual fact. It might bear a different interpretation, but it would be no more exciting to disaffection and strife than many speeches made in the British Parliament drawing attention to murders of Irishmen, nor of a gathering of Englishmen met to discuss the murdfer of a policeman by Irishmen. That was the most important point to consider. They had to decide if the Crown had proved what were the words used. If that were left in doubt they had then to determine what the words were. Then they had to decide if the words actually uttered were used with a seditious intent. In considering this they had to consider the whole speech. They were entitled also to consider the occasion on which the words were used. It was Si:. Patrick’s Day. It was a gathering of Irishmen, and if a few Englishmen strayed in they would be very few. The speech was made to Irishmen, and if the jury, were to look at these things in a fair, broad and liberal spirit they must not criticise them too closely. They might think that some of the things would have been better leftunsaid. They might think some were more provocative than they might be. They might think it far better in New Zealand whore Englishmen and Irishmen dwell together in amity, that the memory of these wrongs, or supposed wrongs, should fall into oblivion, and that it was unfortunate that such an address should be made, but they must go a good deal further than that before tliey decided that the Bishop had in bis mind the stirring up of strife. Unless they come to that conclusion they could not find him guilty in that indictment. Still, said His Honor, he would have thought it better if the Bishop in his last words had in the words of the King, at the opening of the Northern Parliament, speaking of the wrongs and injuries of the people, said: “ Let us forgive anjl forget.” Unfortunately, the Bishop said: “ Let us remember and forgive.” After deliberaing for 75 minutes the jury returned with a verdict of not guilty. The jury added the following rider: “ We consider that Bishop Liston was guilty of grave indiscretion in using words capable of an interpretation so calculated to give offence tq a largo number. of the public of New

Zealand, and we hcdd that he ara«t bear tbt s| responsibility, in part at least, for the enviable notoriety that has followed Sis utterance.” . _ ,: t His Honor: Thank you is a very sensible rider. .'Vg , 'ine announcement was the signal for.aa . ; ij outburst of wild cheering, and hand ping, shrill cries of women in the gallazx "i being: particularly prominent. . )} When order was restored His Honor said that if the police could find any who took 2 part in the demonstration he would commit them for contempt of court. A WILD DEMONSTRATION, n PARTICIPATORS REBUKED/ • . V (Feom Oub Own Cobbespohdent.) AUCKLAND, May 17, '£■ | The verdict was awaited by a crowded court, and when the jury filed back a state -ig of tense excitement prevailed. When 1 the ;J! foreman, in answer to the usual question iv from the Registrar, announced a verdict o& “Not guilty,” there was an immediate oat. --T; burst of loud applause and wild, cheering, ,dg the shrill joyful cries of women in the gaL> lery being particularly noticeable. ’ Mr P. J. O’Regan jumped to hiafeet* and with his hand motioned to the - monstrators to desist. ■ ■ • * f* The court crier and a policeman, torian voices, called for silence, but ifc-' wa* , some . little time before the accustomed serenity of the court was restored. • , The Judge (who .up to this point' had *jg recognised the futility of attempting to make himself heard) now took a hand : Jb>* t sternly reminding the people that the codrC 3 was not a. theatre, and that if the police * could identify any of the persons responsible J for the interruption he would send-thoie;to prison for contempt of court. - •' •"’f '<> Order being now thoroughly restored, the ; foreman, who had been patiently> waitirg all. the time, stated that the jury bad s| rider to deliver. This unlooked-for announcement caused a fresh thrill of excite-' % ment. The, reading of the rider and' the ■“ judge’s expression of concurrence, there'll’'“j were received in almost stony silence/ ■ After the court adjourned a large crowd' waited outside, and gave Messrs O’Hegtni and Conlan an ovation. There were trie* 2 for i Bishop Liston, the crowd expressing 'of ' L . : desire to “chair” him, but he failed to i appear. _ and eventually his disappointed _? sympathisers were informed that he had i Hit by a side door. ■'