THE AUCKLAND RIOT

Gisborne Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1645, 11 January 1906, Page 2

THE AUCKLAND RIOT

A “ STRANGER’S ” EXPERIENCE. (Per Press Association.) Auckland, last n'ght. '■ Cases arising out of the recent street riot came before the Court to-day. Richard Henry Williams was charged with inciting the crowd to obstiuct constables in the / < execution of their duty, and also with using obecene language. Constable Lenon said the accused was calling out, “ Mob them 1 tako him from them !” and a number of similar expressions. This was while they were taking j prisoner Amy up Wellesley street. The prieoner brought forward no evidence, cayiog he bad been up in gaol for the p&st ten days, and had not boon able to collect ‘ M any. The Bench fined him £5 and costs ' as in the previous case. Joseph Crook was charged with en* £ couraging the crowd to assault Constable Nash. Constable Horan said bo was in plain clothes and in his shirt sleeves at the barracks when tho constables were i; ; ! bringing prieoner Amy to the watchhouse. Hearing accused crying out, “ Rush them ! rescue him 1 don’t let tho take him 1” he rushed out and arrested accused.

Constable Nash gave evidence largely corroborative, remarking that be had seen the prisoner also on the way up, passing the library, inciting the crowd to rescue. Mr Lundon, for the defence, said the ;i; prisoner was a stranger, end had been during the evening with his brother-in-law, who could give evidence that he was not drunk at nine o’clock. He could briDg forward no evidence as to the occurrence. The Sub-Inepsctor informed the Bench that accused was convicted of theft at Gisborne in August of last year, and had been admitted to 12 months’ probation. Ho had also done two mouths for failing to comply with a maintenance order, aud had only emerged from confinement a week before the riot. The Bench decided that theovidence was overwhelming, and said they would inflict a fine of £5 and costs.

Wi liam Migan pleaded not guilty to wilfully damaging the windows of the ; Zealandia Bestaurant to the extent of £5. After hoaring witness the Court dd not consider the evidence sufficiently strong to warrant a conviction, und accused was discharged. In tbe oaee against Migan the bench, in dismissing the information, pointed out yS that the evidence for tho defence showed v that tho man could not have thrown a stone. Walter MoGonuylo was charged with having obstructed Detective Shine while in tho execution of his duty. Acting-Detective Shine stated that while ho was arresting Migan, accused got hold of witness by the shoulder aod attempted to break his hold of Migan. The defence was an unqualified denial that accused obstructed. Accused said he did not oven know for the moment that Bn arrest was taking place, nor did ho know Detsctivo Shine. Tho firet thing ho realised was that a man put his arm around bis neck, and subsequently he found that he was being arrested. He did not know Migan. Ho had just recently been .married. Ho had never been in Court, or mixed up with police in his life before. The Chief Detective j Don’t you think you would have boon better at home with your wife at that time of night ? Acoused : Yes; in the circumstances I now agree with you. The defondant in the previous osse, Migan, stated that he did not seo accused interfere with Detective Shine when he was being arrested, neither did he feel anyone pulling Shine’s arm. The Benoh thought the evidenoe very conflicting, and as there was notbiqg previously known against accused they gave him tbe benefit of the doubt.