ALLEGED BREACHES

Manawatu Standard, Volume LX, Issue 158, 5 June 1940, Page 2

ALLEGED BREACHES

FOUR MEN CHARGED. DECISION RESERVED. Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, June 4. Four men appeared on summons before Mr F. H. Levien, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court, charged with breaches of the Safety Emergency Regulations. They were Thomas Stanley, secretary of the Auckland General Labourers’ Union, who was charged that on March 26 he did request James Brooks to print a leaflet, “The Real Criminals.” with a view to facilitating publication of a subversive statement, and also that he did publish a subversive statement, a leaflet, “The Real Criminals”; John Reginald Angelo, Ron Hurd, and John Langdon, who were each charged that on 'April o they did publish a subversive statement, a speech at a meeting in Cobden Street. Two other defendants did not appear, and warrants were issued lor their arrest. Mr V. R. Meredith prosecuted and defendants, wlio were not represented by counsel, all pleaded not guilty. In the case against Stanley, Detective Stevenson said he went to defendant’s office on April 9, when defendant admitted ordering 50,000 copies of a leaflet, “The Real Criminals,” from a printer. Asked in '> what capacity he ordered them, defendant said he was the author and ordered them as chairman of the national executive of the Communist Party. On April 11 witness again visited defendant’s office and was told that all the leaflets had been distributed. Detective-Sergeant Nalder, who accompanied Detective 'Stevenson, said in evidence that defendant told him: “We are an organisation and print pamphlets for the people to read. It is no good having principles and being afraid.” FULL RESPONSIBILITY. Addressing the Court, defendant submitted that the pamphlet was justifiable comment and contained his sincere opinions! He accepted the fullest responsibility for issuing the pamphlet. He was accusing men in high positions in the country, whose pupil he had once been, and whose opinions, expressed from 1914 to. 1918, he was now following. Mr Meredith: Apparently defendant is not going to give evidence; therefore, all life can submit is that, as a matter of law or fact, the document in question is not open to him in making any submissions to range at large in attacks on' other people. Not only is it not open to him, it is improper. Asked by the Magistrate whether lie could quote any legal authorities to show that statements such' as were in the pamphlet had been held as not subversive, defendant said he could quote only working class authorities. He was appearing, in a ruling class Court, he added, and this was ruling class justice. The Magistrate: You are now saying that this' Court is prejudiced. If you continue in this manner you will be taken into custody for contempt. Defendant said he' considered the pamphlet contained fair and reasonable comment. It was a reply to people in privileged positions in the country, who had made slanderous attacks on his party. From figures which had been published it would not seem that the pamphlet had hindered recruiting. The rate had, on the other hand, gone up appreciably in recent weeks'. The Magistrate: In other words, you consider yourself a recruiting agent. In the cases against defendants Angelo, Langdon and Hurd, Mr Meredith said there were four different speakers at a meeting in Cobden Street on April 5. SPEECHES QUOTED: Brian Snowdon, shorthand typist, relieving on the staff of 1 the Department of Internal Affairs and Hansard assistant, said he took a full shorthand note of the "speeches, copies of which were produced in Court. Witness said he attended Communist and. other meetings at the request of the Police Department. Sections of the speeches were quoted by Mr Meredith, who cpntended they were breaches of the Emergency Regulations. None of the defendants gave evidence or called witnesses, but in addresses to the Court submitted that their speeches were not subversive and were not intended to prejudice recruiting or interfere with the discipline of His Majesty’s Forces. ; Defendant, Angelo, said much of his speech was occupied with criticism of the Government. The Magistrate: There would be little talk which did not include that, but the >9int is, do your utterances come within the evils mentioned in the regulations ? In all cases the Magistrate reserved his decision.