CAUSE OF RIOTS.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 456, 18 May 1932, Page 8

CAUSE OF RIOTS.

Did Communism Play a Part? DETECTIVE CROSS-EXAMINED. (Special to the “ Star.”) WELLINGTON, May 18. Communism and its alleged connection with recent mob riots were subjects of cross-examination when Bertram Charles Ross, a cook, aged fiftyfour, was charged before Mr E. Page, S.M., with inciting lawlessness in Cuba Street on May 10. During his evidence Detective Waterson said that he found on the accused a card showing membership of the Friends of the Soviet Union. Counsel objected to this evidence. He said he understood the evidence was being allowed to go in on the ground that it had a tendency to prove intent, and he would like the Couit to indicate whether that was so. If the matter of the Communists being reputed to be instigators of violence—he was authorised to say it was not so—was to be accepted as proof or partial proof of intent, then, counsel submitted, the Court was bound not to take judicial note of any such fact. The notoriety in such cases should be overwhelming, and he submitted in all confidence that, apart from the -writings of the Welfare League and one or two other people, there was no proof that the Communist Party had ever instigated violence as a matter of law. The Communist leaders, he was instructed, strongly deprecated violence in connection with the unemployed movement. However, the point was whether the matter was sufficiently notorious to justify the Court in admitting evidence to prove intent. It was dangerous ground for any Court to presume anything that was in the nature of a political policy. Magistrate's Ruling. Mr Page said he could put his ruling into a very short compass. His view was that if it was a fact that the defendant or an}' other defendant belonged to a local organisation, either the Communist Party, and, as in the present case, the Friends of the Soviet Union, and if it was a fact that it was the policy of such organisation to advocate disorder and lawlessness, then, in his opinion, those facts could be proved to show intent. Counsel said he felt it was his duty to bring the matter forward and to make objection whenever the question of politics was mentioned. Mr Page said that he had given the matter careful thought, realising its difficulty. Both facts would have to be proved. Detective Waterson said the doctrine of the Communist Party was to look for industrial trouble among the workers, and if there was none, to make trouble. Their ultimate object was revolution. He had heard that publicly announced. The Friends of the Soviet Union were a branch of the Communist Party, with local headquarters in Vivian Street. It was run by well-known Communists. The witness denied that for the past year he had had special instructions to ferret out the Communists and ” get ” them. Counsel: You will deny that it is part of the policy of the Police Force in New Zealand to-day to get hold of the Communists as soon as possible? Witness: I deny that. You have never had instructions? No. We never get instructions like that. Cross-examined further. Detective Waterson said he thought a woman named Myrtle Jones, a prominent Communist, was the secretary of the Friends of the Soviet Union in Wellington. He had seen her in the union’s office with a typewriter. Counsel: Did you know that the sole existence of the Friends of the Soviet Union is to break down the animosity which exists towards Russia? Preventing War with Russia. Witness: It goes further than that. They want to prevent war with Russia. Counsel: You don’t suggest it would be a good thin<* for us to go to warwith Russia? Witness said he knew the Friends of the Soviet Union were tied up W'ith the Communist Party Counsel: Oh, you’ve been reading the clap-trap of the Welfare League, or some other body like that. Do you ever read that in the papers? Witness: No. Counsel: Well don’t; it won’t do you any good. Counsel then went back to crossexamine the witness on the incidents leading up to the arrest of .the accused. After hearing further evidence, the Magistrate convicted Ross and ordered him to come up for sentence if called upon within twelve months, a condition being that he should enter into a bond with a surety of £SO to be of good behaviour. CHARGES OF INCITING. Accused Men did Not Realise Danger. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, May. 18. • Eight men were convicted by Mr E. Page, S.M., to-day, on charges of inciting lawlessness on either Tuesday or Wednesday of last week, and each of the accused was ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within twelve months, conditional on entering within seven days into a bond with a surety of £SO to be of good behaviour. They were: Patrick Dolan, alias Michael Dermody, aged 46, a labourer; Barnard Charles Whitlow, aged 29, a labourer; Gustavus Harold Kitchener Isaacs, aged 18, a presser; William Victor Guilford Hargreaves, aged 21, a labourer; Frank Parker, aged 24, a labourer; Reginald Patrick Johnston, aged 30, a steward; Thomas Martin Kilkelly, aged 22, a labourer, and Bertram Charles Ross, aged 54, a cook. In the case of William Reilly, aged 38, a carpenter, sentenced on Saturday to one month’s imprisonment, a rehearing was granted and the case was brought into line with the others. A similar sentence was imposed. The Magistrate said that the question of penalty had given him much anxious consideration. The cases differed essentially from those in which shop windows were wantonly smashed and goods looted. Though there could be no denying the seriousness of the charge of inciting lawlessness, he thought it probable that the defendants were carried away by the prevailing excitement and that they did not,

realise the danger of another conflagration being started. Their conduct was thoughtless rather than calculated or vicious. He had, therefore, come to the conclusion that imprisonment should not be imposed. Other Charges. A charge against Marius Petersen, aged 44, a labourer, of wilfully breaking a window, was dismissed owing to doubt. Harry Clarence Berney, aged 31, a storeman, was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment for the theft of jewellery. A charge against George Stanley Pegley, aged 33, a labourer, who had elected to be tried by jury was dismissed, owing to doubt of intent. William James Baker, aged 35, a fireman, who was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment on Saturday for the theft of a glass mug, was committed to the Supreme Court for trial on charges of using indecent language and being a rogue and a vagabond in that he was found armed with a baton and a stone with felonious intent. This ends the riot cases.