ALLEGED SEDITIOUS SPEECH

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2976, 13 January 1917, Page 10

ALLEGED SEDITIOUS SPEECH

A WATERSIDE WORKER IN COURT, WORDS ADMITTED A middle-aged waterside worker, . named William Parker, eamc beforo | the Magistrate's Court yosterday, bo- , foro Mr. S. 15. M'Carthy, S.M., charged with having 011 January 10 published a seditions utterance. Tho utterance in question, it was , claimed, was seditious in that it had 1 a tendency to excite disaffection against > tbo Government of New Zealand and : to interfere with the recruiting of His ( Majesty's Forces, and to encourage op- j position to the enforcement and ad- . ministration of the laws in forco in New Zealand relative to compulsory . military service during tho war, and ; to excite disloyalty' in respect of that 1 war, and to interfere with tho carriage of goods required by His Majesty in connection with the present war, con- ; trary to Clause 1, of the regulations made 011 the 4th day of December, 1916, under the War Regulations Act, 1914. The speech as reported for tho Crown was read to the accused, who was then asked what plea he desired to enter. His reply was to the effect that "if that could be re-wrote (sic) and put in the right way" he would be "proud to I plead guilty to it." As it was, he said, . ■ the report was not grammatical or corrects He would therefore plead not guilty. Mr. P. S. K. Macassey, Crown Prosecutor, asked for a remand till to-day, and this was granted. He said he would opposo any application for bail. The accused wished to have the case heard forthwith. "I quite understand," he said,'"that I am here to Ije perse- : cuted, and I want the persecution over." The Magistrate said that in view of tho class of offenco and the language alleged to have been used he could not see nis way clear to allow bail. MAN CONVICTED OF DISLOYAL UTTERANCE INCIDENT IN AN HOTEL BAR. The case was resumed in which Maurice Hope was charged with having published, on December 8 last, a statement indicating disloyalty in respect of tho present war. The accused's alleged statement and the evidence of one witness for tho defence have already been published. Detective-Sergcant Cox conductcd . the prosecution, and Mr. E. M. Sladdcn defended. The police statement of the case was " that the accused, in company with a soldier in uniform, entered the private bar of the Imperial Hotel on the evening of December 8. There were in tho bar three returned soldiers. Tlio accused called one of them, named Steer (who has since left N.Z. as a cook aboard a vessel), and, after saying some words to him, struck him on the eye. Another of the soldiers interfered, and Hope made use of the language quoted in the inlormatiou. Later, one of the soldiers asked the accused . (out side the hotel) whether he knew that he had struck a. man that had only one eye. The accused at the time • was wearing a badge with "No" on it, and the soldier who was addressing mm • snatched it from him. The accused struck the soldier and then ran away. Evidence was given by two constables • that the accusefl had complained of being assaulted by several returned soldiers, and that he had also complained of having an Australian anticonscription, badge snatched from linn. This concluded the case for the prosecution. ; Mr. Sladdcn, opening for the defence, said that the defendant denied having made the utteranco in rcspect ■of which he was charged. Ho was a farmer, married, with three children, and had three times tried to enlist, i- The root of the troubio was that Sk-cr had a grudge against Hope, who had ! once disqualified the former's brother in a chopping coutest. Steer had gono up to Hope in the bar and had snatched the lattcr's badge and thrown it to the floor. The most vliat Hope had said amounted to a remark that he "hadn't much time for some men wear- ' ing red bands 011 their arm." This had reference to Steer, who was wearin0 * such a band. The 1 'No' " worn by Hope had an American mi's print. Evidence for the defence was given ? by Frederick, Ferguson, a member of ! ' the 23rd Reinforcements, who was iu l " the company of Hope when the latter ' entered tlie Imperial rlotel; also ov W. T. Brunton (manager of the United 0 Farmers' Co-operative Association) and f Walter J. Haines, and by the defendant himself. . Hope' stated in tho course of his II evidence that lie was a member of the e French Pass Patriotic Committee, and ■ had acted as auctioneer for that body. He had last year won a first prize given by the Pelorus Motor Boat Club and had bunded the money over to the Patriotic Fund. He had served iu tho Territorial forces, and had been rejected as mcdicallv unfit when ho tried to enlist. He alleged that the man Steer had never been in the firing line, but had lost his eye as the result of disease. George William Wallace AVelmer, a n justice of the peace residing at l'reneh is Pass, stated that he had known the d accused for a considerable time. He knew him to be patriotic and of good character. ■ The Magistrate convicted the defend-. '? ant and fined him £5, also ordering ll him to pay costs. Tho c/ise was not one for imprisonment, said His Wnrir ship, as the probability was that the 1- utterance was made while the de1-, fondant was under the _ influence of 't liquor, the evidence having made it clear that Hope bad been drinking.