INCITING LAWLESSNESS ALLEGED

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21598, 19 March 1932, Page 4

INCITING LAWLESSNESS ALLEGED

JOSEPH SUTHERLAND CHARGED CASE ADJOURNED FOR SIX MONTHS The case in which Joseph Sutherland was charged with inciting lawlessness during an unemployed meeting was continued in the City Police Court yesterday morning before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M. Giving evidence for the defence, William Pine said that he had heard the defendant speaking at several unemployed meetings, but he did not treat him seriously, as Sutherland had the reputation of being a wag. When the defendant was speaking on March 4 no one in the crowd treated him seriously, and there was a considerable amount of laughter. He moved a motion that a strike be held, but only about 18 or 19 hands went up when the motion was put to the meeting, and there was general laughter when Sutherland declared the motion carried. To Sub-inspector Cameron, witness said that he had known the defendant for some time. He had not taken any active part himself in the demonstrations. He would not swear that Sutherland did not say that the single men should be taken off the work. Percival Harold Petrie said that he had heard the defendant speak at several meetings, but he had never treated him seriously, and the crowd had always adopted the same attitude towards the defendant. To Sub-inspector Cameron, witness said that a certain section of the Unemployed Workers’ Movement had treated the suggestion of a strike seriously. Similar evidence was given by Ronald Rackley, who stated that Sutherland had been expelled from the Unemployed Workers’ Movement for three months on account of his speech on March 4. _ Edward Victor Cuff also gave evidence to the effect that Sutherlands remarks were never taken seriously, this evidence being corroborated by Sydney Smith and Archibald Crawford. , . j ' ' , Counsel for the defendant contended that there had been some contradiction in the evidence for the prosecution as to the actual words used by the defendant, and on that account, and also by reason of the fact that Sutherland’s remarks were never taken serjously, he could not be convicted of inciting lawlessness. The magistrate said that the meeting at which the alleged offence had been committed had been called aa the result of a dispute among the workers at 1 ine Hill on March 4. It had been contended by counsel that there was insufficient evidence as to the actual words used by the defendant. The purport of the defendant’s words were, however, the important ingredient of the case. He had to consider whether the words sworn to would tend to incite lawlessness. They could, but the matter would have to be taken further than that. Sutherland was one of the official speakers at the meeting. / The matter pressing on the mind of the - meeting was the strike at Pine Hill, and speeches were made dealing mainly with that strike. An official speaker’s utterances were usually taken a s a reflection of the attitude of the controlling body, but the evidence for the defence was to the effect that Sutherland was looked on as a joke and was not treated seriously, which was corroborated to some extent by witnesses for the prosecution. Considering the attitude of a certain section of the crowd towards Sutherland, he wag of the opinion that the defendant could not be treated as a man speaking with conviction. Although the words might tend to incite lawlessness one must be chary of interfering with freedom of speech, even of a foolish man. He thought that the proper course to adopt, as he could not look on it aa a very serious offence, was to hold the matter over for sis months. He was convinced that the words used were the vapourings of a foolish man._ He did not propose to enter a conviction, but would adjourn the case for six months, provided Sutherland did not address any further meetings. If he should be foolish enough to do so, he would be convicted of using words which would tend to incite lawlessness.