NOT UPHELD

Hokitika Guardian, 12 August 1932, Page 5

NOT UPHELD

MAN’S APPEAL ..( ‘.( ' (•(( . \ . , AGAINST RIOT-SENTENCE. (Per Prfiss :Aisociation~r- Copyright.) WELLINGTON 5 , - August 11. * . An echo' of the disturbance in Wellington on the evening of the 11th. of May was heard in the Supreme Court 1 to-day, -when the Chief Justice, (Sir M. Myers) heard kn appeal by .William '., Henry piearOe, agains-t liia conviction by Mr. Page* S.M., on A charge of being a. rOgue and a vagabond, in that be was in possession of' am offensive weapon a stone, witli felonious intent." - : :

Tlie hearing of the‘appeal,(took the . form, of . re-trial. The 'AfeistaintT Crown Prosecutor said tips case arose out o-l trouble which occurred in the vicinity of Cjliuznee Street on the night of tli© lltji. of May, following on a ; riot that -‘ aftern-ooii. Special ccjb* stablos.ori duty had- bean 'subject. to : considerable -(Whew attest- . !| eel, appellant, it was alleged had said . V to one of the regular polioemcu: ,‘T .. don’t mind 'you, fellows, but I have no time for nlie qther A stone had been found in (Pearce’s pocket. Evidenoe was given by Grown witnesses, as to minor disturbances and Btone*throwing tfi the vicin’ty of the ; spot where-fiearoe wasarrested) • .Evidence tho’appellant to the effect that he hod ndt. taken part, in any of the disturbances. -• V Piearce stated that h-e Had, picked' up. ' a, .paxapop ticket wrapped’ round : a, 1 stone,; ■ just,/prior. tq his arrest,., and when he saw the police approaching, he bad put both the ticket and the stone in his pocke|, ds ; : ’ ’ ~ . ~- • '■' :• Mrs'-Mary Catherine.... Pearce,- .' the! ;" mother of the appellant} said that her. son. istayed at her ’place for the most" part : of .•May. He did-riot leave tho house until; 8 p.m., wlien he went, out, to make arrangements about his wife’s .. ; confinement. • : ; ‘;.V d “We are workdrs,’’ and ;we work ' ' hard,” said tke v witness, "with emotion;: V but, thank- God, we are respectable !'• ’ I feel.that 1 cOuld.say a lot.” '; - 1 The witness ldff the-• Court :i room - weeping; -

CbunSel 'for tliO appellant, that (the stone found, pri the. accused ; . was 'Urit capahie of denied an of- ■ tensive weapon) within the meririinjgr of ;. . , the Act, ; , ’r.,- , ,:; 7 ( ;l , _ , His. Honour, Sir M. Myers, said that > ’’he had rib hesitation, id. saying that the etonb .'found uijon Pearce, was capable ; of being held as' being Van offensive weapp-ri;. Even . such »•' siriall . stone, r 1 might inflict a zierious injury, or *ven kill’.,*', V'”"' ' v Counsel: .“It is a serious' thing v’to deem a man a rogiie arid!ft vagabofid.” . j The- Chief Justice : • “It i&veyen;a mbfe serious thing that a youtag man ;., p should go about the 1 city with a stone ‘ in his pocket for the purpose .of in-;: ' dieting serious ’ injury to persons do- . ing their duty and helping to keep the peace. I fear that :I am no mor© credu* ; lous than the learned Magistrate, who, has convicted the appellant,” said the . Chief Justice. “Like the Magistrate). I also reject the explanations given by , ; the • appellant for the jpreMnce. of the • stone in his poqket. lam satisfied t, t after his arrest the appellant majde ; ' the etatement : ‘ ‘lt' is not but 1 other i.- T do not lijse.” The appellant’s intention was, had'he 5 not been taken, by .the police, to join other men in hurling istones at specials. Plainly the intention- of thes© young men was to do injury. ,It ,;was piairi (that the fourid in the appellant’s ; podc-et,; would' if ii ' hit a persop,; be. .. caiioulatodto do injpry. V.; Ilia, VV appeal w'ouid therefore be dismissed.:; “I have to .consider the .the -. , : (light of the times, ■■ > when . courisel, asked; if/ th© - might he reviewed S l lf young wiiLindulge’in; this-pastime'of 'throw-*!;-(ing.,stones, at mfen!, -. (or, if they ig. '^ v '■ session,- or are careless of, ’jury they inflict, they must be-putt4' ished.” ; , (• The appeal costs were at £6 6s.