THE ALIBI INDUSTRY.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1929, 11 December 1913, Page 8

THE ALIBI INDUSTRY.

IN STRIKE COURT CASES. HOW IT FARES UNDER FIRE. ONE WITNESS PULVERISED, Three strike cases were heard by Mr. W. G. Hidtlell, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday. A charge'" of having assaulted certain special constables during tho Featherston Street riot on November 5 was preferred against Arthur Hodkinson, a waterside worker, who is on strike. Mr. H. I<\ O'Loary defended Hodkinson, who pleaded not guilty. Robert John Walker, a railway clerk, stated that thero had been a considerable disturbance in ' Featherston Street in the vicinity of the Railway offices on the afternoon of November 5, Tho special men were passing, and a. mob was stoning them. Witness was standing on tho steps of the Railway offices, and he saw Hodkinson, who was standing a few feet from him, throw a stone at tho horsemen. Hodkinson was formerly employed as a storeman by the Wellington Manawatu Railway Company, and witness knew him by sight. Fred Nash, another railway clerk, swore that he saw Hodkinson by the Railway offices when tho special constables wore passing. Hodkinson denied that ho hart been in. Featherston Street at tho tinio of the riot. Ho added that he had been at his boardinghousc in Lome Street when the disturbance occurred. Ho called three strikers to support his statements.

One of these, William Joseph Dwaiio, stated that he saw Hodkinson in Post Office Squaro at about 4 o'clock (which was after tho riot). Subsequently he said that ho was crossing Fcathorstoii Street to go into tho Squaro and saw the troops lino up at the other end of "catherstoif Street. Chief-Dotcctivo Broberg; Is that the nearest you wcr« to tho riot that day? Dwane: Yes. Could you seo any stone-throwing taking place then? —"I may havo." Could you—yes or no?—"I think I did." Now will you swear that that was tho nearest that_you wore to tho disturbance that afternoon ?— "It may havo been." Weren't you along near Levin's building that afternoon? —"I can't say. Perhaps I was." Weren't, you near Levin's building?— "Yes." And didn't you walk over to the Railway offices, to the corner? —"Yes." And tho riot was in progress at the time? —"Yes." Didn't you see tho accused there?— "I believe I did." Didn't you sec him there? —"Yes,'.' Weren't you speaking to him?— "Yes." What did he say to you?—"I don't remember. What was lio doing?—" Just standing thero. I didn't seo him throwing stones." Oh, no. Of course, I don't suggest that ymi did. Who was throwing stones? Tell me ono person.—"l don't know." What I Do vou mean to say that you don't know tlie name of one man who was throwing missiles that day?—"l don't know the names." Were you throwing stones? The witness hesitated. Were you, or were you not? Witness failed to answer. Tho Magistrate; Ho might incriminate himself.

Witness: I might say something against nivself. The -Chief-Detective: Very well. I'll leave that question. Did you see tho ace-used throwing, stones? Witness: I decline to answer. Tins concluded tho cross-examination. The Magistrate: i think the defendant has committed perjury. He will ho convicted and lined £4, in default fourteen days 1 imprisonment, and ho will ho required to enter into a bond of £40, with two sureties of .-£2O each) to keep tho peace for sis months.