AUCKLAND RIOTS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 75, Issue 178, 30 July 1932, Page 8

AUCKLAND RIOTS

THE SEQUEL IN COURT TRIAL OF J. H. EDWARDS DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS [ Ptr Association.) AUCKLAND, July 29. The trial of Janies Henry Edwards on a charge of taking part in a riot on April .14 way continued at 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 other riot cases. Detective-Sergeant Boyle said that he had had previous experience of riots, including the Lloyd George Riot in Birmingham, but he nevef saw a more disorderly crowd than the one outside the Town Hall. Counsel for the defence said that the Crown, by skilfully presenting the evidence, had coloured the case against Edwards. There were many weapons 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 stated that he was mar ried, with eight children, said that when walking in the procession to the Town Hall he called out “the usual working-class slogans,” namely, “Shall we go into slave camps or shall wc fight for our wives and kids?” He had no intention of creating trouble. At the start of the riot ho saw the crowd outside the main door break into a semicircle and the police driving them back with batons. He ran along intending to call upon the crowd to give no trouble, but was struck down. Cross-examined, accused said he was 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 in all walks of life. The league was for legal and financial protection of “men in an unfortunate position like myself.” Accused, when asked why he went into hiding after the riot, said that 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?” Accused: “That is so; but I belonged to a party not very popular with the police just then.” Accused admitted telling the crowd that if they were attacked they should crowd round the police and take their batons off them. Other witnesses for the defence were then called. Jury Disagree Summing up, His Honour pointed out that the most dangerous typo in the 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 the batons from the police “and use no viol* nee,” then he was undoubtedly encouraging a 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’ ‘itirement, disagreed. A new trial was ordered.