WELLINGTON RIOT ECHO

Taranaki Daily News, 12 August 1932, Page 9

WELLINGTON RIOT ECHO

STONE OFFENSIVE WEAPON

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION.

DISMISSAL BY CHIEF JUSTICE. COMMENT UPON LAWLESSNESS. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. An echo of the. disturbance at Wellingtoil oh the night of 11 was hehid In the Supreme Couft to*day, when the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) heard an appeal by William Henry Pearce against his conviction by Mr. E. Page, S.M., on a charge of being ■ a rogue and vagabond in that he was in possession of an offensive weapon, a stone, With felonious intent. The hearing of the appeal took the form, of a re-trial. The assistant Crown Prosecutor said, the case arose out of trouble which occurred in the vicinity of Ghuznee Street following a riot' in tho afternoon. Special Constables on duty had been subjected to considerable hostility. When arrested Pearce, it was alleged, had said to one of the regular policemen: “I ( don’t milid you fellows, but I have no time for the' other « a stone had been found in Pearce’s pocket. Evidence was given .by Crown witnesses as to minor disturbances and stone-throwing in the vicinity of the spot where Pearce was arrested and evidence was given for appellant to the effect that he had not taken part in any of the disturbances. Pearce stated he had picked up a pakapoo ticket wrapped round a stone just prior to his arrest, and. when he saw . the police approaching lie had put both the ticket and the. stone in his pocket. Mary Catherine Pearce, mother of the appellant, said her son stayed at her place in Aro Street on May 11. He did riot leave the house until 8 p.m., when he went out to make arrangements about his wife’s confinement. “We’re workers and we work hard,” said witness with emotion, “but thank God we’re respectable. I feel that I could say a lot.” The witness left the room weeping. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the stone found on Pearce was not capable of being deemed an offensive weapon within the meaning of the Act. His Honour said he had no hesitation tn saying the stone found upon Pearce was capable of being held as an offensive weapon. Even ouch a small stone might infliot serious injury, and even kill. Counsel: It is a serious thing to deem a man to be a rogue and a vagabond.

The Chief Justice: It is even more serious a thing that a young man should go about the city with a stone in his pocket for the purpose of inflicting seri-ous-injury, to persons doing their duty in helping to keep the peace. “I fear I am no more credulous than the learned magistrate who convicted the appellant,” said the Chief Justice. jLike the magistrate, I also reject the explanation given by the appellant for the presence of the stone in his pocket. I am satisfied that after his arrest the appellant made the statement, ‘lt is not the police but the other I do not like.’ Pearce’s intention was, had he not been taken by the police, to join the other men in hurling stones at the ‘specials.’ Plainly the intention of those young men was to do injury. It was plain that the stone found in Pearce’s pocket would, if it hit a person, be calculated to do serious injury. The appeal therefore will be dismissed ” “I have to consider the case in the light of time,” said His Honour when counsel asked if the sentence might be reviewed. “If young men will indulge in this pastime of throwing stones at men doing their duty, or if they have stones in their possession- and are careless what injuries they inflict they must be punished.” Costs were fixed at £6 6s.