RICHARDS AND BOSTOCK.

Maoriland Worker, Volume 3, Issue 91, 13 December 1912, Page 2

RICHARDS AND BOSTOCK.

This case arose out of the events of November 11 that preceded the organised attack by the scabs and police on the Union Hall on November 12. Richards (unionist) was standing outside the ball, when the scabs came up four deep. It was alleged that Mine

)one had said "scab" as the scabs came along, and Bostock at once directed his attention to Richards —a much smaller man than himself, requesting him to "say scab again." When Richards didn't say it, Bostock apparently made a savage attack on him.

Detective McSweeney had got a statement from both unionist and the strikebreaker, and both .stuMjuatuts were put iv as evidence.

An extraordinary situation arose when, on Mr. Lundou asking to see Jiostock's statement, Mr. Mays protested that that portion of it which referred to the attack on and seizure of the hall and the ordering out of the unionists should not be open to crossexamination or made public. (All through the police court proceedings any approach towards evidence that touched the housebreaking or murder episode or the Colorado deportation attempts, was viewed by the Crown with the utmost apprehension, bordering on alarm.) The magistrate upheld the Crown's altogether remarkable attitude, and Mr. Lundon insisted that his protest should be recorded.

In the course of argument concerning this matter, Mr. Lundon remarked that during the hearing of the Kennedy case he had been so utterly astonished at the conduct of the case and the things permitted to be done that he hud walked out of court in disgust. He insisted that part of a document could not be tendered as evidence —if a document should be put in, he contended that every line of it at once became subject to review.

Henry Bostock, strike-breaker, stated that he was in the first part of the scab procession that walked on November 11. He alleged that Richards called him a b scab, and he- demanded that Richards should "say it again." Richards had replied, he alleged, "Come out on the road and I'll say it." Bostot'k then caught Richards by the arm and pulled him out and hit him. Richards hit back, a. crowd of scabs gathered round, and they were parted. As soon as Richards oould get away he ran down the road.

This was, in effect, Bostock's evidence through liis counsel.

To Mr. Lundon, he replied that he lmd worn the Union Jack on his coat all his life. Then he said he had worn it in Waihi for 20 years. Next he stated that it was last Tuesday that he had got the Union Jack he was at present wearing in his coat. He had put on a red, white, and blue badge a few days after he had gone scabbing. On that Monday lie had gone with others running around looking for unionists and chasing them. He chased any Federationist in sight; didn't know who and didn't care. When the scab procession broke up in the vicinity of the Church of England the scabs scattered after the unionists. The scabs were late in getting to work that morning. There were more than 200 in the scab procession ; still when he heard the word scab used he took it as applying to himself. He couldn't name any man who walked in that procession—not even the man next to him. He believed he was the only local man there. Richards was not in any aggressive attitude; , was standing in a quiet way when he struck him.

Such was the essence of the strikebreaker's own evidence, and while he was in the merciless hands of Lundon Mays' anxiety and uneasiness was very noticeable.

Under further cross-examination, the strike-breaker declared that he wanted the unionist to say "scab" again so that "he'd bo in to him quick and lively."

Mr. Barry laughed joyously as the story of scab assault on the unionists was told.

Bostock could only name one constable who was about that morning.

The witness was getting considerably tangled when -Mr. Lundon remarked : "Why, your, statement is so extraordinary that even your friemd Harvey laughs at it." Harvey was standing with the police in the doorway, and one of these told him to "get out of it."

Bcstock further declared that, after dealing with Richards, he made for the hall before any shot was fired. ' 'He wanted to get into the hall because he supposed he wanted to see who was calling out scab there." (There had no evidence whatever that anyone inßide the hall had called out "scab.")

A reference was made to a unionist named Southey, and. Mr. Lundon asserted that the police had taken a statement from Southey in connection with this matter, and although the Crown was in possession of that statement, it was being suppressed, and why it was being suppressed he would leave the court to infer.

The Crown offered no explanation as to why it Was deemed necessary to suppress Southey's statement.