NEW TRIAL

Southland Times, Issue 21773, 30 July 1932, Page 6

NEW TRIAL

JURY DISAGREES CHARGE OF PARTICIPATING IN RIOT CASE AGAINST EDWARDS (Per United Press Association.) Auckland, July 29. The trial of James Henry Edwards, on a charge of taking part in a not on April 14, was continued in the Supreme Court to-day. The jurymen were, kept together last night. About 30 witnesses, mostly policemen, gave, evidence for the Crown, their evidence closely following that given m the Lower Court and in the other not cases. , ~ . . - Detective-Sergeant Doyle said he had had previous experience of riots,, including the Lloyd George riot in Birmingham, but he had never seen a more disorderly crowd tham the One outside the Town Hall. . ' Counsel for the defence said • the Crown, by skilfully presenting the evidence, had coloured the case against Edwards. Many weapons had been exhibited in Court, but there was no evidence that Edwards had used any of them. The police made mistakes like other people and he intended to call evidence which would entirely disagree with much of the police testimony. . Edwards, who said he was married with eight children, stated that when walking in the procession to the Town Hall he called out “the usual work slogans” namely, “shall we go into the slave camps” or “shall we fight for our wives and kids.” He had no intention of creating trouble. At the. start of the riot he saw the crowd outside the main door break into a semi-circle, and the police driving them back with their batons. He ran along intending to call upon the crowd to give no trouble but was struck down. Cross-examined, the accused said he had been a member of the Communist Party for about a year and gave three addresses. The unemployed workers movement regarded him as a leader. The Labour Defence League was composed of men of all walks of life. The League was for the legal and financial protection of “men in an unfortunate position like myself.” The accused, when asked why he went into hiding after the riot, said he knew from experience that in times of trouble the police always looked for those they considered leaders, particularly if they happened to be Communists.

The Crown Prosecutor: But you had done nothing you say? The accused: That is so, but I belonged to a party not very popular with the police just then. The accused admitted telling the crowd that if they were attacked they should crowd round the police and take the batons off them.

Summing up, his Honour stated that the most dangerous type in a community might be not the man who was openly violent, but the man who was fluent with his tongue, and perhaps saturated with undesirable literature, and who influenced his fellows to take part in such proceedings as those of April 14. There was ample evidence that Edwards was associated with the procession that night, and ample evidence that the rioting was not a sudden explosion, but premeditated. In such circumstances as arose, the police were fully justified in using their batons and if Edwards did as he said he did, urge these people to take their batons from the police and “use no violence,” then he was undoubtedly encouraging riot. What right had he, when the police were discharging their, duty, to encourage his men to seize their batons.

The jury, after four hours’ retirement, disagreed and a new trial was ordered.