RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HOKITIKA.

Grey River Argus, Volume V, Issue 348, 7 April 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HOKITIKA.

Saturday, April 4. (Before G. G. FitzGerald, Esq.,R.M.) (Condensed from the West Coast Times.) RIOT. TheprisonersLarkin, Manning, Melody, Clarke, Barrrtt, Hannan, and Harrow, were brought up on remand. Win. Shaw, the Mayor of Hokitika, gave evidence to show that the procession on the Bth March was calculated to produce alarm. He stated his conviction that had any opposition been made to the entrance of the procession into the cemetery, a serious disturbance would have arisen. He thought that. there was a great deal in the procession to cause terror and fright, The very purpose and scope of the procession was calculated to excite the opposition of the great majority of the people in the town. He was terrified by it, or he should not have taken measures of defence. He armed himself with a revolver, and he knew many others that did so. His alarm commenced two or three clays before the procession came through the town. There was no disturbance. It ■was because of his own reasoning in his own mind that the affair looked alarming, and not what actually took place. Mr Shaw's evidence concluded the case for the Crown. His Worship here asked the prisoners if they had anything to say to the accusation. The prisoner Larkin said he spoke for himself, but he thought he could also speak on behalf of all the others, and that had he known that the planting of the cross, the emblem of man's redemption, had been contrary to the feelings of the people of Hokitika, or any town, he should not have done it. He had never offended against any community, or any section of a community. Prisoner Barrett said that all he had to say was, that he was not guilty of riot or of any other offence against the law. The remainder of the prisoners pleaded simply "Not Guilty." Mr Rees rose to address the Court, and said that as, with his Worship's permission, he hart been permitted to appear on behalf of the prisoners, he would now apply for their discharge. The learned gentleman proceeded to review the evidence, and in the course of his remarks observed that the procession of which the prisoners had been accused of arranging and joining in showed no symptoms of rioting. He defined the meaning of riot, quoting from Hawkin's Pleas of the Crown in support of his argument. He addressed the Court for the prisoners at some length, arguing that no disturbance had taken place, nor had there been any intention of creating a breach of the peace. The procession was harmless — peaceable men with their wives and children were there. There was not one witness who had got into that box who was on the spot, and who had seen the procession, who really felt alarmed from what had taken place. The question which his Worship had to try was whether the prisoners were guilty of a riot. He submitted not. The prisoners believed that the three men, O'Brien, Larkin, and Allen, who had perished at Manchester, had met their doom, not as murderers, but as martyrs ; and they simply wished, in whatever had taken place, to show their sympathy with, and respect for the men themselves and the principles for which they suffered. He thought the accusation ought to be direct — not indirect. The prisoners had come quiet and orderly to show their respect for the men hung at Manchester, and for no other purpose. He remarked that the counsel for the prosecution had failed to show evidence of a riot The holding of the procession, the driving back of a nail, the planting of a cress — none of these constitued a riot. These circumstances constitued nothing more or less than a common trespass, and could only be proceeded against as such. His Worship remarked that the prisoners were not accused of being at the meeting at the Munster Hotel, of holding a procession, opening the gates of the cemetery, or planting a cross separately, but of all as one act of riot, and he considered that the planting of the cross was the culminating point in the offence. The prisoners were all committed to take their trial at the next sittings of the Criminal Court, to be holden at Hokitika. Mr Rees applied for bail, but it was refused for all the prisoners, with the exception of Clarke, whom the Magistrate understood to have been, before these occurrences, a peaceable and well-disposed citizen. He had no objection to accept bail in Ms case, LI 00 in his own personal security, two sureties of LSO each, and one LSO as a guarantee of good behavior in the meantime. The charge of publishing certain seditious libels in the Celt newspaper was proceeded with against the prisoners Larkin and Manning. The connection of both prisoners in the proprietorship of the paper was proved, and a number of the articles complained of were read, and both prisoners were committed for trial.