THE WATERLOO QUAY RIOT.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1975, 4 February 1914, Page 5

THE WATERLOO QUAY RIOT.

: DEFENCE AN ALIBI. John Edward Harrington was charged that on October'3o-ho took part in a riot in Waterloo Quay.' and further that, on the same day, ho assaulted certain special constables in tho execution of their duty. Mr; P. J. O'Regan appeared for the accused, who pleaded ''Nfot- guilty." • Mr. Macasscy stated that tho riot vas that at the Post and Telegraph fe'ores. It would be alleged that accuser! was seen with a pistol or a revolver it: his hand crying out, "Shoot the ; ——— !" .Very'definite evidence. *#®ild be submitted of identification.

Sergeant M'Glono said that, on tho occasion in question, Harrington had called out, "Look ' at tho scabs. Get at ' thorn.' Whikv tho crowd wero throwing missiles at tho special constables accused was rushing round holding a revolver or a pistol in his hand above his head, and calling "Shoot tho ! Tho —- scabs!" Ho had also seen three other men With revolvers. Two constables wero injured. Beforo tho riot had become serious a photographer had endeavoured to tako a picture of , tho crowd:, but accused and others rushed him and threatened to smash his camera and throw him into the harbour. To Mr. O'Kegan: Ho saw accused carrying what appeared to bo a revolver, but ho would not swear positively that it wos a revolver. Ho. was absolutely c.ortain that accused, was tho man ho had seen in the crowd. ' ' Constable Ede said that accused was

one of tlio most excited men in the crowd.. Ho had carried a si:iall liack rcvolvor, and lie called out "We'll shoot the ! We'll shoot the scabs!" Ho had next • seen the man in tho Post Office Square about a fortnight 'iter, and lyyl pointed him out to DetectiveSergeant Cassells. To Mr. O'Regan: Ho was certain as to the identity of the accused, lecaiiso when ho saw that the man had a revolver ho naturally took particular notice of him. • Dctectivc-Sorgeant Cassells stated that he liad arrested Harrington on November, 14. ■ .When charged with tho offenco the accused replied ho thought he was. at home on October 30. later ho said that he had been in the Squaro e\ery day from 9 o'clock till 5 o'clock, hut he had not been at the Pest and Telegraph Stores. Dotcctivo Mason, who had accompanied Detective-Sergeant Cassells wLen the. arrest was made, gave similar evidence. '

Where was He that Day, Mr. P. J. O'Regan said the.defence would be that the police were mistaken as to identity.' Iho: man' whom they saw with' a revolver was not Harrington, but someone else. The' accused Harrington gave evidence. He was a fireman, and arrived in Wellington in quest of work four days .before- the strike: commenced. On tho .morning of October 30 'he went d'.wn to s.s. Maori at a quarter to eight, and saw tho second.engineer about getting work, and he accounted for his movements until 10 o'clock, when ho arrived back at-his lodgings. He had remained indoors reading all day, and, further, he had no moustache at that: time (accused has now.a,heavy.dark moustache). • To His Honour: He had nover had;a revolver or a pistol in his life. James Braitliwaitc, a fireman on tho Maori, gave evidence as to accused's visit to tho steamor. Harrington had left it about an. hour later. Witness went ashore about 9.15, and about 0.45 a.m. he saw accused in Manuel's Street. Ho .corroborated accused's statement that on that day accused had uo moustache. . To His Honour: Although he had been in Wellington at the time, he had not been called as a witness by tho accused in the Lower Court. . ; Alice O'Oonnell said that Harrington boarded at her house. On October 30 last ho went out. early, but returned at 10 o'clock, and. remained indoors all day.. Sho had never known Harrington to carry a revolver. Sho also stated that on the day named Harrington had no moustache. Detective Sergeant Cassells recalled, said that acoused had-a small dark moustache when arrested, but ho did not appear.to have been recently olean shaven. Mr, O'Regan, addressing the jury, repeated his statement made in opening that the case was one 'of mistaken identity. Mr. Macassoy'did not. address the jury. '■■■. : r His Honour on tho Alibi. His Honour said the defence set up was,an alibi. The only question about which the jury should bo careful in ..considering evidence as to alibi . was Whether the witnesses were right in their, dates. No doubt Mrs. -O'Conne]]. was giving a,truo account",of.one day's hapbut it may have taken place on the day. before or after the .occurrence. Braithwaite's evidence did' not establish an alibi, and was not material. As an indication of how easily Mrs. O'Connell might bo mistaken, she had said that accused was arrested on a Thursday, whereas he was not arrested until Friday. When accused was aifested he professed not to know when tho riot occurred, suggesting that ,it was in the afternoon, but was this at all likely? Wis jt,likely.tkat;accused,. a working man out of employment, would not know what was going on, and would not, know that tlio riot orcurred,in the morning? .The whole question WSs as to whether they could set" aside .the positive certain testimony- of police officers that he w-as present. Thd officers who gave evidence had no doubt whatever,-. There was also the fact that accused had not'offered his evidence of alibi in the Court'below. ' The jury disagreed after the full four hours' retirement. • His Honour, 'ordered a new trial at this sessions, and accused was bound hi his own recognisances of £50 to surrender himself for trial on Monday.

FIRST MA., IN. TUMULT IN P. &-T. STORES YARD. Samuel Thompson waß charged that on October 30 lie took part in a riot in: Waterloo' Quay, and further, thac he assaulted certain, special constables'. Mr. A. Dunn appeared for him. This case also related to tho riot at the Post and Telegraph Stores. Mr. Macassey said the evidence in Thompson's case was the stronger by reasonof tho fact that he was the first man of >the crowd to enter the store yard. About a month later' a special constable spoke to him,- and suggested that ho was the man who went into tho Post and Telegraph yards, clapped his hands, and called tho. rest of the crowd in. Accused replied: "Yes, I came in with two friends." This constituted an admission. • Also, when a»rested and charged, ho made no reply. Victor Thomas Dymock, special constable, said that ho had been stationed at the Post and Telegraph Stores whenthe riot occurred. Accused came inio tho yard and refused to leave when reg«lar constables requested him to gu. Finally'an officer tried to ride him out, and accused clapped his hands and called to tho crowd outside to como in. They came on, tearing the fence down, and iusido they threw bottles, bolts, and stones at the special constables. Ho saw accused about a month later, and said to him: "Aren't you the man who camo to the Post and Telegraph' Stores?" Accused replied: "Yes, 1 came in .with two mates." To Mr. Dunn: Ho.did not see the prisoner use any violence or make any threats. Ho simply called to the'crowd. He could not say whether accused joined with the' crowd" in throwing stones, because, when tho crowd camo in, tho "specials" were ordered to rido away. ! Henry Percy Taylor, of Kiwitea, another special constable, corroborated this evidence. . ' : To Mr. Dunn: The disturbance commenced from tho timo that tho prisoner called out, •'Come on, boys." . , ■ William George Shannon,, of Feilding, special constable,. gavo evidence as to the incident, when witness 'Dymock charged tho prisoner with having been the man that caused tho riot. His cvi r donee as to what accused said coincided exactly with Dymock's account. Subsequently ho (witness) arrested the prisoner.-, 'Constable Eckford . also related what had taken placo before, tho riot. Ho had no doubt that, the accused was tho man. ' Constable Fallon gave similar evidence. Detective-Sergeant Cassells said that accused was a waterside worEcr. He read tho warrant to tjio accused on October 28, and accused made no reply. Mr. Dunn then called accused to give evidence on his own behalf.

Only Entered as a Picket. Accused stated that ho had worked on tho wharf for seven years. Ho went to tho Post and Telegraph Stores on tho morning of tho clay mentioned, and went into tho yard about seven or " eight minutes beforo tho fenco was broken down. Ho climbed over tho north gate, and he was asked by a constablo;"Where are yon going? Arc you a picket?" He replied, "Yes." The constable said: "It's all right so long as there's no more of you. His object in going to tho yard was .to sco the "specials" 'to-put tho strikers' sido of tho case beforo come of them, and ho

inquired for tho captain. The crowd outside tho fence was not more than 100 or 150 when ho saw it. pother witnesses estimated it at 300.) He domed having been asked to leave the yard by foot, constables, until a mounted man rode at him rather roughly. He attempted at once to leave the yard, and he made no signal to any outside tho fence, except perhaps to wave his hands to soino men that he knew who. were on trucks outside. Ho denied having clapped' his hands or having called out, "Come on, boys." Wheu the crowd rushed in ho merely stood aside and lot them .pass. To His Honour: Ho had gone to tho yard to try to talk tho specials over. Ho had not been sent b.v .the union; ho was on a roving commission merely. Alfred John' Wakeford said that at tho time of the riot ho had been employed by tho Postal Department and he had been working in the yard. The accused was' a stranger to him. He said that the accused came into the yard and said to-a special: "This business lias got nothing to do with you chaps." The special replied: "I don't know about that; you had better see tho captain." -The special pointed out the. captain, and accused had somo conversation with him. Then a mounted constable rode, up to the accused. Witness did not'see accused clap his hands, or wave a signal to any of his friends outside thefence. In all the timo prisoner >jvas in the yard he used no violence and lie spoke quite, civilly Thomas Smith,.secretary, of tho Working Men's Club, and formerly secretary of tho Waterside Workers' 'Union, gave evidence as to prisoner's character. He ■said ; that Thompson was a respectable hard-working man. Edward Grindlay, labour foreman on the wharf for tho Union Company, said that accused .was a hard-working man, always anxious to get work, and very regularly employed. What Followed the Signal? His' Honour, summing up, said there was no doubt that a riot had occurred. As to whether accused took part in the riot, tho evidence of.Dyniock was conclusive that he did.' If'the jury wished to find that accused did not tako part, then they must disbelieve the evidence of Dymock, Taylor, and' the constables in the yard. Dymock and Taylor said that accused clapped his hands and called out: "Come on, boys." What followed.immediately afterwards? The crowd tore the fence down, threw missiles at the special constables who had to fly for their lives. Shannon's story was that the accused's own statement when, charged by Dymock with haynig been at the riot, was that he was being put out by a constable and he waved to some of his friends. What for? The presumption must be that he was calling for assistance to resist the police. Accused said now.that.he.was merely waving a salute' to some; of his friends outside: Why should: ho to men on the trucks outside? He"was a union picket, and they knew, what happened. The crowd broke down the fence, and committed acts, of-violence. What could any honest man assume from that?

'. The jury disagreed. His Honour-ordered a now trial for Monday next. Accused was admitted to bail on his.own recognisances of-£SO.