SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 23, 22 October 1917, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

MOSQUITO FLEET HOLD-UP

APPEALS OF YOUNG AND HOWELL ABANDONED. Tho appeals to have beeivmado to the Supreme Court on Saturday on behalf of William Thomas Young, sccrotnry of the New Zealand Seamen's Federation, and Frederick Charles Howell, assistant secretary, against their conviction for inciting a seditious strike, were abandoned when the ciiso was called on. The Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) was on tho bench. Yonntf and- Howell wero represented oy Messrs. if. Jlyers and H. l> , . O'Leary. ' Mr. P. S. K. Macassey appeared for tho Crown. Mr. Myers said that Mr. M'acnssey had shown Mr. O'Leary and him some telegrams which nntil that morning had not been available to Mr. O'Leaiy, and winch were new matter. As His Honour knew, an' appeal of tho kind proposed to be I made was a re-hoaring. Evidence niißlit be called, and that evidenco neoil not be restricted to tho evidence that was 1 called in the Court holow. The telegrams that Mr. Macassey had submitted to counsel and properly submitted, were telegrams that passed between one of the appellants, who was in "Wellington, and tho other, who was in Auckland. Those telegrams placed tho whole position in. ft somewhat different light from that iii which it appeared when tho caso was disposed of in tho Magistrates Court. Mr. O'Leary had seen the appellants, ■ and in view cf the telegrams whith Mr. Macassey had shown counsel, and which the Crown could produce m thoso proceedings, it ha/1 been decided not to go on with the appeal. One con Id hardly help regretting in a way thit this eoKse.had been made necessary, because there were points which otherwiso would have- arison, and which, in the lnter- ■ ests of the public and of justice, it would most undoubtedly have been desirable to obtain an authoritative decision ot tno Supremo Court upon. That could not now be dono in the present aspect of tho j case, but some other opportunity might at a later <lato arise. His Honour: I should hope that the occasion will not arise. Under the War llegulations, continued Mr. Myers, tuere was an evidentiary section of a somewhat unusual kind, and some very difficult questions arose upon that. But for the telegrams, counsel would have had no hesitation in submitting to the Court that thero was not sufficient evidence for the conviction of his clients. In view of the telegrams, howevor, counsel had not been disposed to go on with tho appeal without discussing the altered position ivith the appellants, and advising them as to tho effect of tho telegrams. The appellants saw the position, and the course now adopted was taken with their concurrence, expressed to Mr. O'Leary. His Honour said that what counsel had done was just what would have been expected from him as an able and reputable counsel.' In submitting to tho evidence showing that an appeal could not possibly succeed, he hat done what -was ..fair to his clients and to the Court. He had acted as nn .upright barrister should act, At *»=> Honour (#ulJ do was to dismiss appeal. As the appeal had not licen pro; (•Dcded with, he thought that only noitn inal costs should be given. He would allow simply tho costs of-all witnesses but police witnesses. . "My duties end here,", concluded the Chief Justice, "but I think I might he allowed to say this-that it is a very sad thing that eaitors, of all men, ehouUl bo in this position. I was brought up in mv earlv days among seamen, and for "tjiieratibns there have always been eeanfen in. our family . . . .If these meii Wild accept Inendly advice. -1 womd snegM that thoy get the matter settled by leaving it to tho Arbitration Court, which is always anxious to do what is fair.to them. 'That is all 1 shall say.