BISHOP LISTON.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 2430, 18 May 1922, Page 2

BISHOP LISTON.

BEFORE SUPREME COURT. WAS SPEECH CORRECTLY REPORTED. EVIDENCE Oh’ PRESSMEN. Auckland, Tuesday. The Bishop Liston case opewd to-day.-The first witness was Oordon Stanbrook, a press reporter. Answering .Judge Stringer, witness said what he wrote for his paper was practically a verbatim copy of part of his notes, changed from the brat person into the third person. His Honour asked,: “Are you sure of the expression “murdered by foreign troops?” Witness: “Yes.” Replying to Mr Meredith, witness said he did not take the whole of the speech, but nothing else that was said would have altered the tenor of his report. To His‘Honour; The expressions were not qualified in any way. There was no doubt about the use of the words “murdered by foreign troops” or the reference to “the glorious Easter of 191(3,” and to “men and women willing to die.” Mr Meredith: “What did you mean when you said you took only what you wanted?” Witness: “What I considered of public interest. 1 did-not. take a shorthand note.”

Counsel: “Is it not a risky thing to say part of the speech is verbatim, when you took it in longhand?” Witness: “It is impossible to renioinbei* some passages.” He admitted some of his evidence differed from that given’ in the Lower Court. He had merely to rely almost entirely on his memory. “Do you still think the people referred to by the Bishop died at Easter, 191(5?” Witness: “On consideration, I think the reference also concerned people who had died after Easter, lorn”" “Do you say the Bishop said that women during Easter week were murdered by foreign troops?” 1 Witness: “Yes. He had a list in his hand.” FOR THE DEFENCE. Other evidence for the Crown was mainly on the lines of the proceedings in the Lower Court. For the defence, Mr J. O’Regan said the jury must have been satisfied with the report on which the charge was based, which was admittedly brieff' and also inaccurate. Bishop Liston had preserved the notes of his speech and they would be put in. The jury would have no difficulty in deciding, after hearing the Bishop, that he had no seditious intention and that the words if properly reported, were not capable of that interpretation. Worths had to he taken in their setting, and it was altogefher unfair to do as had been done by the press throughout New Zealand, to publish v.liat the Bishop had said in one paragraph isolated from its context and to make drastic comment upon it, as a result. He had no hesitation in saying that this was the class of case which put the jury system to the severest test.

Giving evidence, Bishop Liston said he had never been a member of the Self-Determiuail.iii League. He was a native of Dunedin, and his parents arrived in 1863 or 1864. They were born in 1847 and 185!) respectively. He admitted the report of his speech regarding their being driven from Ireland and “snobs of ihe Empire” was substantially correct. He was referring to the eviction of his parents and three and three-quarter millions evicted with them. He was recalling what eviction in Ireland meant . The passage about “the glorious Easter of 1916” did not accurately represent what lie had said. The document from which he read that portion of his speech had come to him through the mail in the afternoon just before (he concert. His words were “1 have here a list of the men and women who were proud to die for Ireland during and since 1916. Of these, 16 were executed by shooting in 1916, and 52 were killed while fighting during Easter of 1916, including Terence Me.Swinev, Lord Mayor of Cork, who died of a hunger strike. Eight were,executed by hanging, twelve were executed by shooting and 57, including three . priests, were murdered by ‘foreign troops! “Those,” said Bishop Liston, “were the exact words I used.” Only those in the last category were meant to be described as murdered by foreign troops. He did not speak of the Easter week people as being murdered at all. He did not refer to any women as being killed in Easter week. Nothing would be further from his thoughts than to refer to those killed in Easter week as murdered. The word ‘murdered’ referred only to those killed in 1920 by the Black and Tans, when the policy of reprisals was in full swing. It would have been better to have mentioned the Black and Tans instead of using the word-troops, but he took it his audience knew the. word ‘murdered’ was used-because leading statesmen and Anglican clergy in England employed it in referring to the Black and Tan reprisals. The words “glorious Easter,” he thought were used parenthetically. It was a common phrase applied, to that insurrection. “FIRST INSTALMENT OF FREEDOM.” At the time it occurred, many ]ieople in Dublin though! it a mad enterprise, but with, the lapse of time, it was felt those who had died had passed, beyond criticism, the first instalment of freedom.” Witness referred to the Treaty.- In. his opinion it was the gift of God, because

it gave political freedom to Ireland. Bv “determined to have the whole # it,” lie meant that though relations had been adjusted by Treaty between England and Ireland, there was still a great deal to be done. For instance, the union of the two Paiv |tnmerits- This could I be achieved by friendly agreement, without force. He had not mentioned force and he failed to see how his; words could infer of use of force. 'Witness had in his mind a parallel between New Zealand and Ireland. The report about there being ‘plenty to fight and die for Ireland,’ did net accurately represent his statement. Quoting from his notes he declared his words to have been “God has made Ireland a nation, and while grass grows and water runs, there will he men in Ireland, and women, to fight and even to die, that God’s desire may be realised.” He had no intention to infer that physical forces should be used. The case was adjourned. NOT GUILTY. BISHOP LISTON ACQUITTED. VERDICT RECEIVED WITH APPLAUSE. “A SENSIBLE RIDER.” Auckland, Last'Nigbt. ■> A verdict of not guilty was returned by the jury in the ease against Bishop liston, and added th against Bishop Liston, and added the following rider: “We consider Bishop Liston was guilty of a grave indiscretion in using words capable of an interpretation so calculated to give offence to a large number of the public of New Zealand and we hold he must bear the responsibility in part at least, for the unenviable notoriety that has followed his utterance.” His Honour: “Thank you, gentlemen. That is a very sensible rider.” The announcement of the verdict was the signal for an outburst of wild cheering and hand-clapping, the shrill cries of women in the gallery being particularly prominent. When order was, restored, the Judge said if the police could find • any who took part in the demon- v stration he would commit them for contempt. After counsel on both sides had addressed the jury, his Honour occupied an hour in summing up. The jury deliberated for 75 minutes.