AUCKLAND RIOT

Southland Times, Issue 21728, 14 June 1932, Page 5

AUCKLAND RIOT

THE FINAL CASE COMMUNIST BEFORE COURT THREE MONTHS IN GAOL (Per United Press Association.) Auckland, June 13. The hearing of the case of James Henry Edwards, a Communist leader charged with inciting lawlessness on the night of the riot of April 14, was continued to-day. In opening the defence, Counsel said that Edwards had been a marked man for years. He was a labour agitator and had been trying to get better treatment for the unemployed. It was significant that a few days after the riot Archbishop Averill and other high church dignitaries formed a committee to investigate the camp conditions and that those conditions were somewhat improved. Counsel proceeded to comment on the discrepancies in the evidence of the police witnesses, and said that much had been made of the words used by Edwards in the procession: “Shall we fight? That was merely a slogan, and was not meant physically. There were a number of criminals in the crowd carrying missiles, but this was quite unknown to Edwards. When facing the crowd and with both arms up counselling the crowd “For God’s sake go back” Edwards was struck by a baton. He then mounted a balustrade and tried to move the crowd away from the main door. He then left for hospital. It was not correct that he was batoned twice.

Giving evidence, Edwards said he arrived in New Zealand before the war. He described the procession preceding the riot, and said that when he found a scuffle at the main doors he tried to get his men away from there and to assemble them in front of the balustrade to hold an orderly meeting. Before he had time to say anything, he got a crack from behind and fell. A woman appealed to him to do something, saying the crowd had gone mad. He was helped on to the balustrade where he told the crowd the police had started the trouble. He counselled them to crowd round the police, but not use violence. His words were, “If there’s to be any violence, let it come from them. If they crowd round you, take their batons off them, but don’t use them.” Two ambulance men then took him away. Cross-examined, he said that though a Communist he was not a leader. He left hospital because he realized that on such occasions the leaders were always arrested. He wanted it to be the biggest demonstration in Auckland, but hooligans spoiled it. Explaining that he had been subpoenaed to attend, Albert Dickson, Secretary of the Furniture • Trades’ Union, said that after the first party had charged the Town Hall doors, he had seen a man raise his hands, but he could not say whether or not that was Edwards. The man was struck and fell. He saw Edwards later on the balustrade and blood was streaming down his face. Edwards’ Speech. An account of Edwards’ speech from the balustrade was given by Miss E. E. Jury. Edwards had said: “This is what I get for protecting the police yesterday. To-night they baton me. I call on this mass meeting to witness that we hold the police entirely responsible for this trouble.” Edwards also said, “You have seen an unprovoked attack on the unemployed to-night.” Before calling on those present to pass a resolution, Edwards tried to draw the unemployed crowd from Airedale street and Grey’s Avenue to the vicinity of the balustrade, said witness. There was nothing in his conduct to incite the crowd. On the contrary, his conduct was definitely in the other direction. Somewhat similar evidence regarding Edwards’ speech was given by Thomas Kelly, a carpenter, at present on relief works. The Magistrate remarked that he did not see how the crowd could take the batons off the police without using violence. “Well, that is what Edwards said,” replied witness. Three other witnesses gave evidence touching the same incident. Edward's counsel, in closing his evidence in answer to the summary charge, suggested that the Magistrate should consider reserving his decision until after the Supreme Court hearing of the indictable charge. The Magistrate said he could not do that. He would consider lais decision on the summary charge during the luncheon adjournment. “This charge of inciting lawlessness is totally different from the charge of taking part in a riot,” said Mr Hunt, in announcing his decision after the resumption. “Thirteen or fourteen police officers have given their version of what took place. Necessarily there are discrepancies in their evidence which is easily understandable, seeing the exciting moments they were passing through. It is perfectly clear to me that Edwards made his speech (he admits it himself) in which he said, ‘surround them boys, and take their batons off them,’ or words to that effect. To my mind that statement in itself incites lawlessness, therefore I have no option on the evidence but to convict him.” Counsel for Edwards: I submit that to give him as fair a trial as possible in the Supreme Court in connection with the other charge, the question of sentence on this charge should be held over until after the Supreme Court case. Recalling his action in connection with recent similar cases, Mr Hunt said he must be consistent. He had deferred sentence in cases where he considered the offence to be slight. However, he had dealt with the other cases and would act similarly with Edwards. A good deal of damage had been done and great expense had been incurred. Edwards would be sentenced to three months’ imprisonment. Counsel for Edwards: Then I propose to appeal. Mr Hunt: On what grounds? Counsel: That the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Security for appeal was fixed at £2O. When the question of bail was raised, Mr Hunt said: You had better go to the Supreme Court for that. Counsel protested at that course being prescribed. The Crown Prosecutor said he would oppose bail. Counsel contended that according to law, Edwards was entitled to bail under such circumstances. He quoted a section from the Act bearing on the point. Mr Hunt said he would look into the question later. The indictable charge of taking part in a riot was then proceeded with. Depositions of the evidence given in previous similar cases were read to the witnesses and confirmed by them, thus expediting the procedure. In his plea of not guilty, Edwards was sent to the Supreme Court for trial, bail of £250 being allowed. The disputed point regarding bail, in view of intention to appeal against the decision on the first charge, was discussed in Chambers. It was subse-

quently announced that Edwards, was entering into a bond of £2O to prosecute his appeal. He was given his liberty pending the appeal being determined by the Supreme Court