TO BE SENTENCED.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2129, 22 April 1914, Page 8

TO BE SENTENCED.

FDR SEDITIOUS SPEECHES.

CASE OF HENRY HOLLAND

CONVICTIONS UPHELD. "

COURT OF APPEAL UNANIMOUS.

Thtt two convictions against *'Henry Kdnumd Holland for having made seditious speeches during last year's slriko aro to stand. Such is tho decision of the? Court of Appeal by if, unanimous finding. Some time ago Holland, the editor of tlio ''Maoriland Worker," who was _ a slriko orator during tho _ industrial trouble, was tried before a jury in tho Supremo Court on two charges of having uttered seditious words. Tho jury found jitm guilty on each indictment, but his Honour tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stoufc) deferred sonten.ee ponding tho hearing by the Court of Appeal of two law points raised hv Mr. T. M. WilEord, Holland's counsel.

First Indictment. The first indictment against Holland was that oil November 2, 19.13, in making a spceeh at Newtown Park, ho uttered seditions words, to wit: "Wellington has seen _ what is uttiqtto in Australasia. Yon have a GaUi.ng gun on the wharf to-day, and there is one on tho turret of tho Post Office, they tejl us. When Massey's Cossacks come down upon us—l was going to say men, but I don't want to be guiity of libel. The two thousand men offering iu. the Waikato aro heroes, because they will como fully armed, provided Slassey gives 'them full protection. If 'free, labourers aro put on they will work with a. revolver in, their belts and a bludgeon alongside them. _ I urge the uavals pre- - sent (meaning sailors from his .Majesty's ship Psyche, then lying iii tlio port of Wellington) when they are ordered to shoot, to rcniomber where their class interests lie,- and pointy their guns accordingly. Tho railway men should not carry free labourers. Let the trains rot and rust. Tlio strike was not ■made by the working-classes, but hy tho roaster-classes, who are pouring their armed hundreds into Wellington, not in tho _ daylight, but like thieves in the night, comiiig, utterly ashamed of tho work ! tfiey are mulertajdiig, • (They sneak i in tlio midnight hours, but oM grey-haired women come out- on tlio balconies to- jeer them as they pass. The railway men have said they ate prepared to stop the trains, The ■drivers can stop tlio earts and the seamen the Alps. The uniformed police can deal a _ staggering /blow by tearing off tiicir unifoinjs and standing o'v tho watersidcrs. » e are going to win, and, by wo are going to .do 110 matter wli&k means we- aro going to use, ..or ! words to tlio'like effect.

Second Indictment, Tho other jndictmont against Holland was that,- oil October 1913, in makspßgoh at tho Basin Ilcsen c, he uttered seditious words, as follow:— "Tlie waterside ag-rQeipe-nt was broken, when the men were obliged to take a day off when Mr. Liver. pool—Lord Liverpool—the gilded popinjay, tho figurehead of capitalism in Ne2ealaiict, ifrhded here, and tho . saffi-0 ' thing occurred wiieii Sir Joseph Ward's Dreadnought came. I remind them (meaning the police) of words Used by mo at '• Broken. Hill, in Australia—a.n occasrai'i when I was sentenced to two peats 1 impHsoiimont <331 i ot sedition—l told tho miners, ;lf -tSey hit you with a baton, hit them ■ with" a pick-handle, and navo thfl pick at tho end of it.' Hero is your opportunity, you John Bops, They, the employers, want to givo you a nii-se-rablo eight bob a day, • and-the soul and clothes of a slavey and want you to scab on labour, Or words to tho like effect.

Grounds for Appealing. The two law points raised for deeisioai by the Court of Appeal were s—(l)iThat iro tat indictment disclosed no ottonco at law. (3.) Tlisifc the accused had been acquitted by a Magistrate o;i a summary charge of inciting certain per* sons to resist tho policc. and that the evideiice in proof of that charge was the uttering of the words set forth in the second indictment. On the Bench at tlio hearing were Their Honours the Chief Justice {Sir Robert Stout), Mr, Jusiico Deimisten, Mr,' Jostwo Edwards, and Mr, Justice Sim. The Cwwfi was represented, by Mr* J. >V» Safmoad, Solicitor-General; and Messrs. T. M. Wilfwd and P, J. O'Rcgat; appeared for Holland.

SOURf'S: FINDING. THE INTENT, WORDS, & THE LAW ■ The judgment; of % Court of Appes .tfas delivered by the Chief Justice y«i terday afternoon. "The first question, said His Honour, "is whether tlie word uttered on November 2 were rea|onabl capabi-o of being construed by_ ti36 as expressive of a seditious irrtentifri a,* d'.unved by Section US of tho Crhae Act, 1908. "A strike of waterside wort ers had taken place and tli© words sc out in the first indictment were pai of a speech made in tho presence of largo crowd of tlieso workers and ether! 'The strike- was not made,' said th accused, 'by the working classes, bu bv the master, classes.' . In his rien tfie strike was a contest between t-hes two classes, and it. is clear from th last sentence of. his speech that the ac cased contemplated tho use, if necsi sarv, of violence b,v the strikers to gai: their ends. If violence was resort© kj, it would be the duty of the polic to do their best to suppress it f but tho ac cased suggested- that tho police shout tear oTTftieir uniforms and stand by th vatorsiders. If the civil authorities wer tumble to suppress violence with th means at their commafid, they woul< bo. justified i.u Seeking the assistant; of tho navnls. If 'the navals were «i de-red to shoot, tho accused advised then to- remember where their class inter osts lay, and to point their guns ac cordingly. It was open to tho jur to ooncludo that aecuscd recommondei the strikers to use violence for the pur ! poso of gaiiiitig their ends, and that hi suggested nlso that tho police, iii tha event, shoaid refuse to uo their duty and should take the side of the. strik ors, and that the navals, if ordered t< fi.ro on-strikers, should refuse to obe; their orders. Tho jury certainly wouli lie justified in counsels- of tiro kind as intended to promote feelings o illwill and hostility between watersrid< workers aiid omploym, »"d '« treatJuj tho case as on© within thft terms o: Sub-section 1, Clause (1)} of (Section lIS of tho Crimes Act. Question of .Double Pert). "Tho next question to be detenninci is in connection with tlifl' speech made October 26, 1913. Ho h:\d beer tried and acquitted by «. stipendiary magistrate on a chas-go of inciting per. tfiiii persons to resist the police. This 'charge was founded on the speech o! October 30, and tho words were proved !before 'tho'Magistrate. These foots, il was claimed, justified a plea of }>rovwu? .acquittal In order to sujiport such ii plea aft common law, -it is »cce»saiy ier the accused t-o prove that he was acquitted of tho. uffonco mi which H« |ia* bsou arrsigfled, or that* on his

iformw-'tml," lift might- have been convicti ;i of swh oft'cmco. Tho principle |is" thai; no. man shall bo placed in peril 'ill'' lofiai ■ penalties more than once on : tho-...snnjo accusation, and tho ntlu applies only where there has been a former judicial decision on the same iiccitstilioii in substance. A test suggested for determining whether tho previous ; acquittal is a bar or not is whether J.ho ovidonc© necessary to support the second proceeding .would have been sufficient pif.i-rurc u loyal conviction ott | tho first. That test" is neither _ very : clears nor ac?-imik\ It Certainly is inapplicaUiii where tho fact relied on in .support of the charge is tho making of a speech. It may- ho necessary to provo tho whole speech on tho hearing of tho first charge, although it contains matter that constitutes several separate and di-stiiict offences. Accoidjug to tho te.it suggested, i conviction or acquittal, in these circumstances, for one of the.® offences would bo a barto proceedings ill respect of any Oi tho other offenses.

"Previous Acquittal" Plea Palls. "But that plainly is not tho law, and tho common law rule on tho subject seems to bo that, now expressed in Section 408 of tho Crimes Act, 1903. wut whether or not tho common law rule was wider than that embodied iu this section, it is clear, ivo think, that tho only cases in which a plea of previous acquittal can be established now are those provided for in that section. It is admitted that the accused cannot bring lus case within tho terms of that section, for tho reason that, on tho trial betoro the ■Magistrate, he could not have been convicted. of sedition. Tho plea, of a previous acquittal, tbereforcj cannot bo established. It was contended, however, on behalf of the aectesed that, m connection with this idefenoo, ho *as entitled to relv on tlio provisions of hoction 6of tlio Crimes Act, 1903, and Section 24 (g) «f tho Acts Interpretation Act. 1908. But those sections do not : deal with tho defence of a previous acquittal, and appear to have been enacted merely to prevent any doubt as to the right'to proceed' -under any section of an Act whicn makes ail act or omission an offence, although such act or omission may be an ofonco also under somo other Act or under sonio other Section of tho same Act, This right is made, clear, subject to the proviso that ail offender is- not io be punished twice for the rams offence. These statutory -provisions, therefore, -tlo not assist tho accused in liis present contention, and the convictions oil both . indictments ought to Holland appear before the Chief Justice for sentence this menung.