SEDITIOUS INTENTION

Wairarapa Daily Times, 11 June 1932, Page 2

SEDITIOUS INTENTION

NEWSPAPER ARTICLES. FINDING OF MAGISTRATE. WELLINGTON, Friday. Although ho agTQcd that articles of the sort published in the < ' < Rcd IVeditor ’ ’ hod to be viewed and interpreted in a. free, fair and liberal spiiit, Mr E. Pago, S.M., stated at the Magistrate’s Court to-day that, after carefully reading a copy of the paper dated 26th April, 1962, he had come to the conclusion that the articles contained in it expressed seditious intention. A conviction was accordingly entered against William Alexander George Lockhart on a charge of having in his possession for sale or distribution a copy of the “Red W Oi'kcf, ! ' which expressed a seditious intention and advised and encouraged lawlessness. The Magistrate said that he would reserve the question of penalty until cases pending against other defendants had been dealt with.

Questions 'concerning the printing and publishing of the “Red Worker,” and a pamphlet entitled “Strike Strategy and Tactics,” were also enquired into. Leslie Raymond McDowell and Richard Francis Griffin, a bookseller, aged 3'2, were charged with printing or publishing both documents, which, it is alleged, expressed a seditious intention, and advised and encouraged lawlessness, and Griffin was further charged with selling the “Red Worker” or having it in his possesion for sale. A charge of printing or publishing “Strike Strategy and Tactics” was made against John Joseph Robinson and Alexander Galbraith, aged 52, was similarly charged in connection with two issues of the “Red Worker.” All the accused pleaded not guilty. After hearing evidence concerning the setting of the type and other details, the Magistrate reserved his decision on the charges against Robinson and Galbraith. The hearing of the charge against McDowell was then taken. The defence was that McDowell was a compositor, not the printer of the documents. 'Counsel for the Crown submitted that although Robinson and Galbraith were registered as proprietors, printers and publishers, that was merely a cloak to cover the identity of the real printers, who, he alleged, were McDowell and Griffin. Although the registration of Robinson and Galbraith undoubtedly rendered them responsible for what was printed, McDowell and Griffin were also responsible. Police evidence was given of detectives calling at premises in Vivian Street, where a printing press was installed. McDowell was then wearing an apron and had ink and grease stained hands. He admitted selling the “Red Worker” on May Day. Counsel for the defence submitted that there was not a tittle of evidence to show that McDowell was printer. Following the accused giving his evidence, the Court was adjourned until t o-morrow moruing.—(P.A.)