YOUTHS IN TROUBLE.

Otaki Mail, 2 November 1923, Page 3

YOUTHS IN TROUBLE.

IF ASSAULTS ON CHINAMEN. t PINED £lO EACH. 2 £ i At the S.M. Court yesterday, before - Mr. J. Logan Stout, S.M., AA’illiam Rildhann, Harold Knox, Clifford i j Lloyd, Frederick Edwards, and I-larold ’ Baker were charged (1) that on 16th September at Otaki did assault All Hing; (2) did assault Sue Kee; (3) did wilfully damage a window to the extent of 255, the property of Sue Gee. Airy At more appeared for R4kjihana., Ivnox, and Edwards, Air. Dunkley for Baker and Mr. Rutherford for Lloyd. Rikiliana, Lloyd, and Ivnox pleaded guilty to the assault charges. Baker guilty to assaulting Sue Kee, and not guilty to assaulting Ah Hing, and Edwards guilty to assaulting Sue Ke.e. All pleaded not guilty to damaging the window. 1 Sue Gee stated: I am a fruiterer in business in Otaki. I remember Sunday, September Jbrh. I noticed someone come to the front door at 10. MO. J went and looked through the window, and saw a man at the floor and two or three men on the footpath near a motor-car. I did not open the door. I then not iced that one of the men had gone round the back and went t:o see who was there. I .opened the back door li'lwiM L-ntitiirmn i lirnu* n nililxi.’li fin o!■

when someone threw a rubbish tin at: j me. It was too dark to see - who the ! men were. When the rubbish tin was thrown the boys went to the.front of the shop. I followed when someonethrew a stone and broke a fan-light over the door. When the stone was thrown the boys got in the car and drove away. To Mr. Atmore: I could not identify any of the boys; it was too dark. To Mr. Rutherford: When I looked out I eouid not. tell if there was anyone in the car. To. Mr. Dunklev: There were two or ' three boys, perhaps more. Defective Holmes stated: On lib h September, I interviewed Baker and ' Edwards and they admitted being in I ' the car and going to Sue Gears shop at 10.15. On the 28th L interviewed Rikihana. Lloyd and Knox and they admit- ‘ ted being occupants of the ear that ' went to the shop. Rikiliana admitted that he went with another to the back ‘ of the premises. ‘ To Mr. Rutherford: l have had a statement from Lloyd that: he remained j in the car. To Mr. Atmore: I formed the im- j pression that Knox and Rikiliana were the only two who got out of the car. { Harold Baker stated: I remember the night of the 16th September. With the ( T others we had come back from Levin and pulled up in front of Sue Gee'? premises.’ Two of the boys got out of t the car. while Debreceny also got out 1 and went home. The car stopped to j let Debreceuy got out. After Rik i - j liana and Knox had run out from the

back of the shop the car was startl'd and we went away. I saw no stone throwing. To Detective Holmes: We had slop ped at another Chinaman’s place previous to this —Ah Sue’s, r cannot say who asked me to pull up. Mr. Dunkley submitted there was no evidence on which to convict Baker. Clifford Lloyd stated: I remember the 16th September. The car stopped at Sue Geo’s but I did not leave the car. I threw no stone, and did nof know anyone had thrown one. I was feeling tired at the time, pretty sleepy in fact, and took no notice of what was going on. I did not know any disturbance was going on. x The S.M.: He was not asleep because lie was tired, was ho? Fred. Edwards stated: 1 did not know the window was broken. I was in the car when the others went to the Chinaman’s. We had had a few drinks and were “merry.*” Wc were just

getting over it. Harold Knox stated: I got out of the ear and went to the buck of the Chinaman’s. We knocked at the door but I do not remember if a Chinaman came out or not. We returned-to the car. .I threw no stone, and did not see one thrown. To the S.M.: I cannot remember if the Chinaman came out or not, I had had a lot of booze. Asked why lie was sure of one matter and not another he said he could oiler no explanation. The S.M.: Because damages is attached to one, is that it? Knox said he was sure he threw no stone. He did not even remember throwing a tin, or that Rikihana threw one. The S.M.: Someone broke the window and all are trying to blame each other. Why don’t tile boys bo honest ! Air. Atmore: They have been frank to the police on all points. The s.M.: The stone was a sort of parting shot. They should pay a few shillings each. One of the boys did it —probably Rikihana or Knox; all were guilty of bating Chinamen. William Rikihana stated: I went to the back with Knox but threw no stone. I did not know the window was broken till told by the detective. To the S.M.: I do not remember a tin being thrown. The S.M.: Was you so muddled you don’t remember what you was doing? Rikihana: I remember going round the back.

The S.M. considered the window must have hecu broken by one of the. boys and said the fairest wav would be to divide the cost of the damage. The whole affair was due to returning from Levin in a “merry” mood, and the publicans who supplied the drink -were nearly as much to blame as the boys, but still this was no excuse. , All were ordered to pay an equal j share for the damaged window. r. ■_ Dunkley at this stage pleaded guilty on behalf of Baker on the charge or assault, while the police withdrew me case against Edwards. Detective Holmes said on arrival of the party in Otaki the ear was stopped and the" Chinaman assaulted, it being stated that Rikihana struck him with a rake, while a prong was stuck into All Hing. The remainder of the party then threw stones. The 8.M.: The boys would not have committed the act had it not been for the liquor consumed. All the boys were concerned and he did not feel j inclined to single them out. Mr. Atmore on behalf of Rikihana. i Knox, and Edwards, addressing the ] Court, said that the whole occurrence j was most regrettable indeed. One hesi- j fated to lay the blame on persons who | were not present in the Court, but he j thought that His Worship would read- j ilv agTee that a very large share of the blame tor the whole trouble tell on the publicans, who supplied liquor ; to the ,youths. The hotelkeepers were the responsible persons. The late re- • , cognised the dangers in supplying liquor to boys and it was to prevent • out breaks of this nature that the law had placed restrictions on the sale, oi liquor, restriction against .supplying youths at any time and restrictions on the sale after certain hours. Boys when together as these boys were on. this occasion did not always net with the same restraint, as when alone. He did not wish to explain away the offences, but h'e would say emphatically and with the utmost sincerity that the publicans had no right whatever to place liquor within the reach of these bovs. It was not fair to the parents who had brought them up and who were responsible for their behavion£,| and towards whom the people of OtaEs

now looked askance; and it was not fair t>o the b.ovs themselves. They couldn’t, stand drink: No boy cornu, but as soon as they'got the liquor the trouble started. Speaking individu- , ally Edwards was the sou of highly respectable parents, who had lived in ' the district for many years. The boy ; was a smart, honest lad and had never I [ been in trouble before. He was hard- | working and industrious and had ex- I pressed keen regret at his misbehaviour. ■ 1 Uiie. charge of assault had been with- i 1 drawn and Edwards had taken only | a minor part in the trouble. Rikiliana i ’ was also another good lad, the soil o/t • highly respectable parents, whose ..an- i or was a Councillor of the Borough and ! well-esteemed. The boy had been in trouble onee before; but apart from, that had a clean sheet. Ivnox was another good lad of well respected emzens of Otaki. He too had not been in trouble before (with the exception of a minor offence). He was a hard working, industrious lad and if left alone would never come to any trouble. Mr. Atmore said that all the parents felt the position most keenly and the mothers had worked themselves into a state of prostration over their bovs. He concluded by making an earnest nppeal to His Worship not to imprison 1 lie boys; to give them :i chance to go out into the work! ami vindicate themselves and show what they were made of. He would assure His Worship (that if given a chance they would

I never come before the Court again. I Mr. Dunkley concurred, and stated his client (Baker) was only 19 years of age, son of highly respectable parents. and had always been told to pick his company. It was well-known that Otaki was one of the most: notorious towns in New Zealand, and boys had but little chance. Baker’s father, sail! Mr. Dunkivy. was away at the time, the lad went to a party, met others, and finally got drink. He took 9 no active part in the assaults, and had I no criminal intention. He had now [ resigned a position in a Government department. and lie CMr. Dunkley) asked that lenincy be shown, and that a line be inflicted instead of imprisonment. Mr. Rutherford on behalf of Lloyd, said the assault was committed as a practical joke and dome when the boys were full of liquor. Lloyd was not aware that the Chinaman had been seriously hurt. He asked for the sake of the boys, as well as their parents, that the Magistrate would award Lloyd a term of probation. His parents were in a position to look after him and willing to do so. while references relative to his character could bo secured if necessary. Lloyd was by no means a bad boy, but was the worse of liquor when the act was committed. He seldom touched drink, in fact had not touched it since he got into slight trouble, wringing fowls 7 necks, some time ago. His previous character had been good, while on this present charge he had already put in eight days iu • • n!.

The G.M. said he considered the boys should be given a chance as their previous records had been good. He din not wish to inflict imprisonment but still the lads would have to be punished. There was also civil action pending against them. Each would be fined £lO and costs for assaulting Sue Kee. while on the second charge they would be convicted and discharged. A short time was given in which to make payment.

It is understood that the lads will now be charged with causing disturbances at a church at Levin, the case being set down for rhe I.sth inst., at Levin. It is also stated that the Chinnin’en said to have been injured will claim substantial damages.