COMMUNIST ON TRIAL

Hokitika Guardian, 14 June 1932, Page 3

COMMUNIST ON TRIAL

ACCUSED’S DEFENCE. (By Teteyraph — I'er Cress Asaociutiom AUCKLAND, J'unelS. The hearing of the case of James Henry Edwards, a Communist leader, charged with inciting lawlessness, on the night of tiie riot of April 14, was continued to-day. Opening the defence, Counsel said that Edwards had been a marked man for years. He was a labour agita. and had been trying to get letter treatments lor the unemployed. It was significant that a few days after the riot, Archbishop Averill and other high church dignitaries forniid a committee to investigate, camp conditions. and that tlio.se conditions were somewhat improved. Counsel proceeded to comment on the discrepancies in the evidence of the polire witnesses, and said that much had been made of the words used by Edwards in the procession, “Shall we fight?” That was merely a slogan and not meant physically. There were a number of criminals in the crowd, carrying missiles, but this was quite unknown to Edwards, When facing the crowd, and with both arms np counselling the crowd, “For God’s sake, go back,” Edwards was struck by a baton. He then mounted a balustrade and tried to move the crowd away from the main door. He then left for the hospital, ft was not correct that ho was baton" ed twice.

Giving evidence, Edwards said that be arrived in New Zealand before the war. He earned a living by putting up tea. He described the •'recession preceding the riot and said that when ho found a scuffle at the main doors, he decided to try to get his nu n away from there, and to .assemble them in front of the halustr do. to hold an orderly meeting. Before be had time to say anything, lie got a crack from behind, and fell. A woman appealed to him to do something, saving the crowd had gone mad. He was helned on to the b Tustrade. v here lie told the crowd that the pili e had started the trouble. He eo - nsche'l them to crowd round the police, but not to use any violence. His words were: “If there’s to he any violence, let it come from them. If .Hey crowd round you, take their baton..- off them, but don’t use them.” Two ambulance men then took him away. Cross-ci—m ned. he said that though a. Communist he was not a leader. He left the hospital because lie realised that on such occasions, leaders were always arrested. He wanted it to be the biggest demonstration in Auckland, but hooligans spoiled it.

Supporting evidence is being heard. CONVICTION ON ONE CHARGE, AUCKLAND, June 13. J. Edwards was this afternoon convicted on the charge of inciting, and was sentenced to thr'ee months’ imprisonment-. Security for appeal was lodged. The hearing of the charge of participating m the Auckland riot against Edwards then proceeded. Explaining that ho had been subpoenaed to attend, Albert Dickson, Secretary of the Furniture Trades Union, said that, after the first party had charged the Auckland Town Hall doom, lie had seen a man .raise his hands, hut he could not sav whether o r not that was Edwards. The man was struck and fell. He saw Edwards later on the balustrade, and blood waft streaming- down his face.

An account of Edwards’ speech from the 'balustrade was given by Miss E. E. Jury. Edwards bad said: “'lbis h wliat I get for protecting the police yesterday! To-night they baton me! ;r call on this mass meeting to witness that; we hold the police entirely responsible for this trouble.” Edwards also said: ‘‘You have seen an unprovoked attack on the unemployed tonight.” Before calling on those present to pass a resolution, Edwards tried to draw the unemployed crowd

front,Airedale. Street and Grey’s Avenue textile vicinity of the balustrade, said wit nests. There was nothing in his conduct to incite the crowd. On the contrary, his conduct was definitely ,tn the other direction Somewhat similar evidence, regarding Edwards’ speech was given by Thomas Kelly, a carpenteiipnt present on relief work. The Magistrate remarked that be did not se e how the crowd could take their batons off the police without using violence. “Well, that is what ..Edwards said,” replied witness. Three other witnesses gave evidence touching tire same incident. Edwards’ counsel, in closing his evidence in answer to the ■ summary charge, suggested that • the Magistrate should consider reserving his decision until after the Supreme Court hearing of the indictable charge. The Magistrate eaid lie,,could not do that. He would consider his decision on the summary charge during the lunch tio n ad jou rn men t. “This charge of inciting lawlessness is totally different from the charge of taking part in the riot,” said MuHunt, in announcing his decision after th© resumption. “Thirteen or. rjotirteon police officers have given their version of what took place. Necessarily there are discrepancies in their evidence which is easily understand' able, seeing the exciting moments.they were passing through. It is perfectly clear to me that Edwards made Ins speech—ho admits it himself—in which he-said: “Surround them, boys, and take their batons off them!” or words to that effect. ,To my mind that statement, in. itself, incites 1 lawlessness. Therefore, I have no option, on the evidence, but to convict him.. Counsel for Edwards: “I submit that to give him as fair a trial as possible in the >Suprem c Court i.u. connection with the other charge, the question of the sentence on this' .charge should be. held over until after the Supreme Court case.”

Recalling his action in connection with recent similar cases, Mr Hunt said that he must be consistent. He had deferred sentence in cases where he considered the offence to he slight. However, lie had dealt with other casco, and he would act similarly: with Edwards. A good deal of damage had been done, and great expense had been incurred. Edwards would be sentenced to three months’ imprisonment. v ■ Counsel for Edwards: “Then I propose to appeal!” Mr Hunt: “On what grounds?” Counsel: “That the verdict is against- the weight of evidence.” Security for appeal was fixed at £2O. When the question of hail was raised Mr Hunt said: “You had better go'to the Supreme Court for that!” Counsel protested at that course being prescribed. The Crown Prosecutor said lie would oppose hail. His counsel contended that, according to daw, Edwards was entitled to bail under such circumstances. He quoted a ■section from the Act bearing on the point. Mr Hunt said he would look into that question later. The indictable charge of taking part in a riot was then proceeded with. Depositions of evidence they had given in previous similar cases were read to the witnesses, arid confirmed by them, thus expediting the procedure. On his plea of not'"guilty, Edwards was sent to- the Supreme Court for trial. Bail of £250-was allowed. The disputed point regarding bail, in view of the intention to appeal against the decision on the first- charge, was discussed in chambers. ,Tt was subsequently announced Hint, on Edwards entering into a bond of £2O to prorawulo his appeal, he was given bin liberty, pending the appeal lieiim determined by the Supreme Court.