WAITARA WORKS TROUBLE

Taranaki Daily News, 19 January 1933, Page 11

WAITARA WORKS TROUBLE

SEQUELS IN POLICE COURT LENGTH OF LEAD-HEADED RUBBER . “FELONIOUS INTENT’ DISMISSED PALTRIDGE CHARGE PROCEEDING A piece of rubber hose with a cap of lead fixed over one end was produced in the Police Court at New Plymouth yesterday as the principal exhibit against Alexander Gibb Grant; Waitara. His appearance was an outcome of recent disturbances in connection with the freezing works dispute. The events mentioned in the charges occurred early on' the evening of January 9. Grant was fined £2 10s, with £3 8s costs, for using insulting language to free labourers outside the bunkhouse at the freezing works. It was when being interviewed by Sergeant McGregor about this matter the same night that the implement mentioned was discovered. The sequel was a charge that he was a rogue and vagabond because he was armed with an offensive weapon with felonious intent. In dismissing this information Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., emphasised that Grant’s good character had weighed in his favour against the suggestion of felonious intent. Another Waitara affair on the previous day was aired when Richard Paerau Paltridge was charged that late at night on January 3 he committed mischief by doing damage costing £2l 12s 9d to a motor-cycle belonging to A. W. Prout. The hearing of this charge, which was separate from the Grant case, will be concluded this afternoon. Pleas of not guilty were entered by Grant and Paltridge, for both of whom Mr. J. H. Sheat appeared. Grant’s case was heard first. The first witness was Penta te Aru, labourer at the freezing works, who said he and several others were standing outside the bunkhouse looking at a motor- . car when Grant cycled past and called out that they had better meet them that night “to have it out.” They looked at him as he went on and he turned round and said “You are a lot of scabs.” Witness was a free labourer. Grant was employed at the works before the strike. To Mr. J. H. Sheat: He did not then know Grant, but Harry Thompson told him Grant’s name. After calling them scabs he had pedalled on towards the station. He had been three months at the Waitara works. Before that he was unemployed at Normanby, said witness. REMARK FROM CYCLIST. David Williamson, another works labourer, gave corroborative evidence. They were on their way to tea when Grant called out “Are you coming down town to-night to give the boys a go, you scabs?” Subsequently witness identified Grant in the presence of Sergeant McGregor. To Mr. Sheat: He had made just the one remark and passed on. Harry Thompson, freezing works butcher, confirmed the circumstances given by the others. Grant had said, “You scabbing lot of .” Other corroborative evidence was given by Frederick Hamilton. During crossexamination this witness fainted and had to be carried from the Court. Sergeant McGregor said he took statements from te Aru and Williamson.. He saw Grant standing in Queen Street talking to a young man on a motorcycle, anif-he was pointed out as the man who used the bad language. He was told of the complaint. While witness was speaking he noticed a piece of rubber piping protruding from Grant’s inside pocket. The sergeant: What is that? Let me have a look at it? Grant declined at first, but on witness taking the lead from his pocket Grant said he would show it. Asked Why he had it, he said he had heard the others were armed with similar weapons, and he had decided to make something ,to protect himself. He had made the thing that day. Grant was arrested as a rogue and vagabond and was told he had no business to carry such an implement. He made a statement that at the union meeting that morning it was reported that the free labourers were carrying bludgeons, sticks and stones. He had gone home and constructed the weapon produced from a piece of hose, on the top of which he nailed a piece of lead. He denied having called out to the men as he passed the bunkhouse. He had been at Waitara twelve years and had never been in conflict with the law before. CHARACTER OF ACCUSED. To Mr. Sheat: People at Waitara had told him Grant was respectable, and witness had no reason to doubt that. Counsel: You don’t suggest he used this weapon? • The sergeant: No. Counsel: You say it is an offence to carry a weapon such as this without using it? The sergeant: In the circumstances existing at Waitara it is. Counsel: Would you arrest me if you found me walking in a New Plymouth street with such an implement? The sergeant: Well, knowing you as I do, I don’t think I would. He said a good deal of explanation would be necessary if such a weapon were found on a man at night time, the inference being that its possession indicated felonious intent.

Counsel: What do you suggest he was going to do with it? The sergeant: Perhaps attack the free labourers. Counsel: He told you he did not intend to use it unless attacked? The sergeant: Yes. ‘ Counsel: It is a fact that a great many persons at Waitara go in fear of attack? The sergeant: The free labourers have complained. “The case for the . defence regarding insulting language is a simple denial,” said Mr. Sheat, “and on the other charge, that there is no proof of felonious intent.” On a charge such as this, continued counsel, known good character must be taken into account. With a person of known bad character it was different. In times such as these there was a grave danger of using these sections of the Police Offences Act as a means of oppression against persons of character. He said the Act was designed to give the police a handy means of dealing with persons of known bad character, and he suggested the sections should be Used in these times with the greatest circumspection. FEAR OF ATTACK. Fear of attack was unfortunately common these days at Waitara. The police could not say definitely what crime Grant intended to commit with the weapon. Probably many persons carried weapons at Waitara these days. Perhaps it would have been better had he not carried the implement, but most'of them would come to such a conclusion after mature consideration. Where a set of circumstances was capable of two constructions an accused person was eni

titled to ask the Court to. adopt the one most favourable to him.

Grant gave evidence. He confirmed the details of his statement to Sergeant McGregor.. He had left the town and rode straight home. He spoke to np one on the way. He was not in the habit of using the language complained of.

He was chairman of an entertainment committee of the old union, the object being to keep, the men entertained, off the streets and out of trouble. He had had the piece of rubber only since lunch-time on the day in question. As he explained in his statement, the matter had been mentioned at a union meeting that morning. He had told his wife that the others were carrying weapr ons. She had remarked that he was not as young as he formerly was and should have something to defend himself with. He then made the weapon produced. The sergeant: Did you hear at Waitara that there was to he a raid on the free labourers on the Monday night? Grant: No.

He realised now that he placed himself in an invidious position in carrying such a weapon. The sergeant: You have no need to carry such a weapon. If molested you have only to go to the police for protection.

Grant: Quite so. But if I received a crack on the skull I could -not go to

the police. .1 am getting ran old man now.

The sergeant: Do you know of any other persons at Waitara carrying such weapon's? Grant:‘ Only what I have heard.

Grant ,produced a number of character testimonials from several wellknown residents of Waitara.

The matter presented a considerable amount of difficulty, said the magistrate. The section said any person would be deemed a rogue and vagabond who was found armed with a bludgeon or other weapon of offence with felonious intent. The magistrate said the evidence proved that Grant had used insulting language. Then, having been , pointed out as the man concerned, he was accosted by the sergeant, who found him with the rub-ber-lead weapon. If felonious intent were proved he .would be liable to a year’s hard labour.

It was bn such an occasion that the value of good character was apparent to disprove felonious intent. He was glad to have the opportunity of showing what an asset a good character could be, said Mr. Tate.' . v For the use of insulting language Grant would be .fined £2 10s and £3.Bs costs. The other charge would be dismissed on the ground that Grant’s good character offset the allegation of felonious inten*-

Grant wa given 14 days in which to find the ACfiay. •

PALTRIDGE CHARGE HEARD

ALLEGED DAMAGE TO CYCLE.

THE “RAID” .ON THE BUNKHOUSE.

The hearing of the charge against Paltridge was next proceeded with.

Explaining the circumstances Sergeant Turner said there was a demonstration against the free labourers near the bunkhouse about midnight on January 7. Of two motor-cycles outside the building one belonging to' Prout was damaged. Evidence by Prout was to the effect that he left his motor-cycle between the entrance to the bunkhouse and the conveniences. He went to bed. Afterwards he heard the cycle fair over. He went to the door twice, but did not. see anyone. Stones were thrown on the roof. He heard sounds of the two motorcycles outside being broken. The noise suggested that iron was being used to destroy the machines. The police arrived at 2.30. He went outside, where he sAw' about six “strikers” on the opposite side of the road. He recognised one. of them, but- he was not in Court that. day. The lamp, generator, exhaust pipe,. carburretor, cylinder and chain. guard on the motor-cycle were all damaged.

To Mr. Sheat: He was. positive the damage could not have been done by one man. When fie first' went to the door there were about 50 men outside. When the police arrived there were six. Charles Henry Sampson, nightwatchman, said that- near the bunkhouse about midnight he saw several men and women walking along singing “Cuckoo.” As he came up to the bunkhouse they started to throw stones. He . said, “Don’t do that. men. Go home. Go to bed.” The crowd started to move off and stopped throwing the stones. He stood there a little. while and . then went to the engine room, where he found a young man.. talking to the shift engineer. The young man left tire engine room. In consequence of what , , this young man told him he returned to the bunkhouse, '.where he found men running across the road. “We’ll do for them,” several of the men. called out. Some of them carried sticks. He heard hammering. Just as he came ..through the passage .by the lavatory he saw Paltridge hammering at a motor-cycle. , Paltridge must have heard him for he. stood up.

“Ob, it’s y° u * “ it? ” said witnessThat was . all that was said. Paltridge had used a piece of piping. To Mr. .Sheat: The raid at the works .lasted only about 10 minutes. He considered there was nearer’ 150 than 50 men in the street at 12.15 a.m. There was another man hammering the other

cycle nearby b ut witness did not recognise him. Leslie Albert Wright gave evidence that when returning to the bunkhouse about 3 a.m. he saw a group of men throwing stones towards the works and heard them calling one another “Sid,” “Laurie,” “Les,” and “Pi.” He heard noises and a report.

The hearing was then adjourned.