SUPREME COURT

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 4, Issue 364, 16 January 1880, Page 2

SUPREME COURT

Monday, Jan. 12. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.) THE RIOT CASEES. After the jurymen had been sworn to the number of 31, His Honor : Mr Joynt now is the time when I must ask you whether you propose to challenge jointly or separately. Mr Joynt: I feel, your Honor, that if I were to adopt the course of challenging separately the result, as was suggested by your Honor, would be productive of so much inconvenience both public and private — His Honor : Don't suppose for one moment that I suggest that you are not entitled to challenge severally, or that I am going to impute to you anything improper in taking any course the law permits. You must take upon yourself the responsibility of bo ordering your challengesMr Joynt: I feel I have no choice in the matter on account of the great inconvenience both public and private of challenging separately. To myself the inconvenience would be so great that I would have to abandon the case. I could not conduct the defence. His Honor : I understand you are retained, and thereforeit isyourduty to conduct the defence whatever may come of it. However I am not going to argue the point. Mr Joynt: I shall consent to a joint challenge. The jurymen then entered the box one by one, and several were challenged by counsel for the defence. On one being challenged by tbe Crown, some discussion took place as to the right of the Crown to do so, and His Honor explained that after having looked tbe matter up veiy carefully, he had found tho law to be that on the Crown challenging, the jurymen so challenged had to stand aside, and in the event ot the panel being exhausted, those challenged by the Crown might be called again, and might serve unless the Crown "challenged for cause."

Michael M'Avey, Tims. Hanley, Patrick Cuddihy, Thomas Magner, Patrick Shannaghan, Edward Murphy, Thomas Keeley, Michael Rock. Stephen Barrett, John Flaherty, Thomas Woods and Michael Leary were then tried.

The witnesses were then ordered out of the Court, on the application of Mr Joynt. Mr Duncan, with him Mr G. Harper, conducted the prosecution ; Mr Joynt appeared for the defence. Mr Duncan opened to the jury, in doing so giving the legal definition of riot in almost the words used by his Honor in his charge to the Grand Jury, and re-capitu-lated the circumstances of tho disturbance which occurred on Boxing day.

Evidence was then taken, which was to a great extent a recapitulation of tint given in the Court below, with the addition of witnesses now being subject to cross-examination. The first witness, Beresford, described the disturbance, but could not identify any of the persons who assaulted the processionists. Other witnesses identified one or two of the prisoners, and one was able to Bwear to four of them, until it came to the turn of one James Moore, who described himself as a city scavenger. This gentleman said there were thirty-five engaged in the assault, and confidently swore to all the twelve prisoners as being among them, though he admitted never having seen any of them before, whereupon the following colloquy ensued:— To His Honor: I have been a scavenger only six years. I was an agriulturalist. I | never was a detective officer.

His Honor: The sooner you are promoted the better.

To Mr Joynt: I never was so far up as a sheriff's officer.

At the conclusion of the examination of this witness, the Court adjourned till the following day.

Tuesday, Jan. 13. The trial of the alleged rioters was resumed at 10 a.m.

At the conclusion of the case for the Crown,

Mr Joynt opened for the defence, stating that he would lead evidence to disprove the identification of all the prisoners except M'Avey, Hanley, Cuddihi, and Leary.

After evidence for the defence had been taken,

Mr Joynt asked His Honor to direct the jury that unless they could come to the conclusion that this disturbance had been premeditated it would not amount to a riot.

His Honor was not prepared to put it that way. He would say that unless the prisoners, at the time of the commencement of the disturbance, had a common intention of some sort it would be no riot; but he would tell them that there was ample evidence of an intention to obstruct the procession. After some further discussion, Mr Joynt said there was another point he would refer to. This was one for which he could not find the authorit}'. The language of the indictment spoke of the procession as being in •' the peace of God and our Lady the Queen." But the persons who belonged to an unlawful association could not be said to be in " the peace of God and our Lady the Queen." It was quite true that they should not on that account be assaulted— His Honor: If they were taking part in a riot, they were so far in the commission of an unlawful act. But if a number of other people, on pretence of stopping a riot, went in opposition and knocked about them with clubs, they were clearly guilty of an assault; and, however unlawful the assembly, if they acted with any other object but the sole one of stopping an un lawful act, they were guilty of riot. Mr Joynt maintained that the procession was undoubtedly an unlawful assembly. (Learned counsel quoted the Act.) His Honor considered that such a Society as the Orange Society had been proved to be was not an illegal Society. Mr Joint quoted the Statute 57, George 111., chap. 19, section 25. His Honor could hardly suppose that this objection had not been previously taken against the Orange Society. Mr Joynt: Undoubtedly it has. His Honor: Successfully? Mr Joynt could not say so ; he had no authorities. His Honor, as at present advised, would not reserve the point. The Orange Society was a benefit Society. Mr Joynt submitted that it was not registered. His Honor thought there was no necessity for registration, as had been shown in a case recently. Mr Joynt argued that it had been proved that the Society referred to by His Honor •had not been registered. His Honor: It was proved that they were not a co-partnership. Mr Joynt addressed the jury for the defence. Mr Duncan briefly replied. His Honor then summed up. He commenced by expressing his regret that 6uch a case as the present should have been brought before the Supreme Court of a country like this, where everyone enjoyed so large a 6hare of civil, religious, and political liberty. As for the legal right, of the men who had been assailed, to make such a demonstration as that which had been interrupted there could be no doubt. Roman Catholics and Orangemen were equally entitled to walk in procession, but it was a question for consideration how far it was desirable for them to do so when evil passions might be aroused. He joined with the learned counsel in expressing a hope that these occurrences would be productive of future good results. He was glad to know that tbe co-religionists of the accused bad expressed no sympathy with the riotous conduct, of which the jury had heard the evidence.. It was well known that the very qualities which made Irishmen the noblest and bravest of soldiers, too frequently caused them to take part in a row, Of course the people of other nations had faults and failings, these were not confined to Irishmen. He hoped the time was not far distant when all men would repudiate the idea of keeping up class differences, whether suoh differences were caused by religious, political, or social distinctions. It was perhaps too much to expect that these Colonies would enjoy a complete freedom from these disturbing causes, but he hoped soon to see something like a consistent public feeling, which would help to carry out the best objects to bo attained by civilised society. He believed that a perpetuation of such struggles as this would be a serious obstacle to the advaneenmnt. o£ tb ■'•'

}■'■■ '! T&-1 ■'■■'■ .-'■■-, ■ ■" --- . ■ ■'''>■■-_■ -■=■- C ' feel assured ttiat neuiier me law hoi the administrators of the law, nor any class

they might consider to be opposed to them, would ever use means to circumscribe their liberty or to interfere with their social and material and material progress. Such class distinctions were the worst enemies possible to the advancement of the Colony. He wished it to be clearly understood that all would get justice, unaffected hy prejudice. That was one lesson which he hoped the proceedings now taken would teach.

His Honor then defined the law, and directed that the evidence showed there had been a riot, though there was no evidence of anterior conspiracy. There was no necessity for more than the establishment of a common object. No other conclusion could be arrived at than that there was an intention to interrupt the procession, and that was all that was necessary to establish the point of riot. As to the circumstances, he would remind them of the outlines. The primary object had been obstruction ; the secondary object was attack with weapons. These weapons, they might take it, had been left there by accident, but they had been used. There was ample evidence of felonious wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. As to the question of who had used violence, there was no defence for M'Avey, Hanley, and Cuddihy. The evidence against them had not been shaken in the least. As to who had done the most mischief, that was not a question of guilty or not guilty. The first person as to whom there was any conflict of evidence was Thomas Magner.

His Honor then went carefully through the evidence affecting those of the accused for whom any defence had been made, commenting upon it, but leaving it to the jnry to say on which side the weight of evidence leaned.

The jury retired to consider their verdict, and after an absence of nearly half-an-hour, returned with a verdict of "Guilty" against all the prisoners, excepting Mur-

His Honor, addressing the Crown Prosecutor, said:—Now, Mr Duncan, on the part of the Crown, have you any suggestion to make with regard to the punishment to be inflicted.

Mr Duncan : I think in this case an exemplary punishment ought to be given to the whole of the prisoners, because I presume from the verdict of the jury that they consider there was premeditation.

His Honor : I don't believe that the jury have come to the conclusion that there was more premeditation than is sufficient, to make the point of law apply. Do yon, Mr Foreman, consider that there was premeditation ?

The Foreman: Yes, your Honor, the jury consider that it was a conspiracy.

Mr Joynt: There is no evidence of that,

His Honor : I think it is quite competent for the jury to say that the watching, &c, show that it was not a momentary plot, but that the prisoners, knowing that the Orange Club was likely to walk, acted in a conspired and arranged manner. Mr Joynt, can you give mo any information about the character of these men ?

Mr Joynt : No, your Honor. They are strangers to the town, who have, for the most part, been working in the country.

His Honor : They are not known to the police as bad characters ?

Inspector Hickson : No, your Honor.

His Honor then proceeded to address the prisoners, and ended by sentencing Hanley, Cuddihy, M'Avey, and Barrett to eighteen months' imprisonment with hard labor, and the remainder of the prisoners to twelve months'.

The Court then adjourned,