CHARGES AGAINST TEMPLE.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14842, 6 December 1913, Page 12

CHARGES AGAINST TEMPLE.

COUNSEL QUESTIONS RELEVANCE OF EVIDENCE. ■-~"■ Robert Semple was charged with having on November. Ist incited persorie to commit a breach of the< peace by uttering the following words:—"Since" I have arrived.in Wellington I have received a wire t<? say that Superintendent Mitchell had been.withdrawn from the charge, at Auckland. Cullen and Herdman are responsible for this. Cullen is sheltering in an office, and will not be seen leading the men. I hope that there will be no shooting, but if

any is done, and Cullen will come out, I undertake to shoot him first."

The .application for accused to be bound over was opposed.

Evidence was given by Detective-Ser-geants Mcllveney and.Rawle, and Detective Andrews ac to the arrest of accused, and by Arthur H. Hatching, shipping clerk. - Mr Wilford at this stage submitted that the evidence being adduced was irrelevant. Ho contended that the magistrate had no power to receive any evidence on such a charge as that now being dealt with, except such evidence as that which related to the utterance on which surety was sought. Mr Ostler submitted that it was always relevant to bring evidence to .show the circumstances of the case, what had taken place immediately before, what was meant, and what was likely to be the effect of the speech. Mr Wilford: This is not the specific date of the information. The Magistrate: I understand your point, but I must rule' that the evidence is relevant. ' Mr Wilford: Quite so, but I must ask your Worship to take a note that I am not admitting the relevancy. The Magistrate: Very well. Further evidence was given by Police-Sergeant McGlone, MountedConstable Murray, and Captain Syraons. In each instance. Mr Wilford lodged a formal objection to the evidence. This concluded the case for the prosecution. , Mr Wilford submitted on behalf of the defendant (1) that the magistrate had improperly admitted certain evidence (already, formally objected to) (2) that the accused had committed no offence for which sureties could be claimed under the Justice of the Peace Act; (3) that the accused did not submit to the jurisdiction of the court to hear such an information as the present, and that the magistrate had the power to adjudicate upon charge 60 framed. Counsei contended that au the utterance amounted to was eimply a threat by Semple to shoot Cullen. There was no incitement. The whole of the evidence referred to eyents before Semple spoke, and could not possibly be relevant. The evidence of events since Semple spoke might be revelant if thre was any evidence to prove that Semple took any part in the riots subsequent to the speech. There was no evidence to prove that he had exercised any influence in the matter. Mr Ostler contended strongly that it was perfectly relevant to show, the temper of the mob, and whether the words used were likely to incite them or not. There could be only one effect of inciting words on the mob. It was an incitement to use firearms in creatine a breach of the peace. _ Tho magistrate said he considered that the Justice of the Peace Act gave ample power 1 to deal with the offence, and the defendant must'be convicted. ■ Mr Wilford: Then I propose to give notice of appeal. The magistrate ordered &c accused to .enter into a bond in the sum of £500 and two sureties of £500, to keep the peace for a period of one year. Security for costs of appeal would be fixed at £i 0 10s. Mr Wilford made the.contention that the sureties were contained in the magistrate's decision, against which he appealed., . After further : discussion the magistrate declined to alter the decision in regard to sureties. The effect is that to be released the accused must find sureties amounting in all to £1000. . A further charge ,of inciting persons to resist constables in the execution of their duty was withdrawn by leave of !the court.