THE CHRISTCHURCH RIOTERS

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2125, 14 January 1880, Page 2

THE CHRISTCHURCH RIOTERS

TOWN EDITION.

The trial of the Christchurch rioters was concluded yesterday. _ In the course of his remarks to the jury, His Honor Judge Johnston pointed out that the prisoners were not possessed of the advantages of a good education, and were less likely to have control over that impulsiveness of character peculiar to their countrymen, and which led them occasionally to get into situations much to he deplored, whilst the same characteristics made them, under good government, the noblest and bravest of soldiers ; and these matters ought not entirely to be ignored. He concluded these general observations by saying that any persons or class of persons who came into a country for the purpose of exciting class against class, association against _ association, and religion against religion, were the worst enemies a community could have. The jury retired, and after an absence of half an hour, returned into Court with a verdict of “Guilty ” against the following prisoners : Michael M'Avey, Thomas Hanley, Patrick Cuddiliy, Thomas Magner, Patrick Shanaghan, Thomas Keiley, Michael Eock, Stephen Barrett, John Flaherty, Thomas Wood and Michael Leary. Edward Murphy was found “Not Guilty,” and discharged. His Honor : On behalf of the Crown, Mr Duncan, have you any suggestion to make with regard to tiic punishment of the prisoners ? Mr Duncan : I think an exemplary punishment should be given to the whole of the men, as I presume from the verdict of the jury that they believe there was premeditation. His Honor (to the foreman of the jury) : Do you believe that the act was premediated ? The Foreman ; Yes, your Honor, we have come to that conclusion. His Honor : In the same sense I have pointed out—that the attack had been arranged beforehand. The Foreman : Yes, your Honor. Mr Joynt: I submit that there is no evidence of that.

His Honor—lt is quite competent for the jury, in face of the evidence, to come to that conclusion. The fact of their meeting at a given point, watching their time, and when the procession arrived at a certain point making making a simultaneous rush indicates a planned attack. It is quite competent for them to come to the conclusion that the assault was not the result of a momontry thought, especially as it was Boxing Day, and that it had probably been publically announced that the procession, with colors and emblems would walk.

In reply to the Court Inspector Hickson stated that the prisoners were mostly from the country. Nothing was known of them by the police. At this stage the foreman of the jury (having obtained permission to speak) said the jury wished to express their opinion that a number of men on a contract should not be paid at a publichouse, as in the case of Barelt.

His Honor—l entirely agree with you. Mr Joynt—There is no evidence of that, your Honor, His Honor —There was evidence that the prisoners were employed by a contractor, and Mr Barrett was a contractor for labour. lam not here to review the action of the Licensing Bench, but I cannot help thinking that when evidence like this comes before them they should hesitate very much indeed as to how far they would be justified in giving Mr Barrett, or any man under the same circumstances, a publican’s license.

The prisoners having been called upon in the usual form. — His Honor passed sentence as follows: —Prisoners ntthe bar. Had you, after you had time to consider what you have been doing, and how you imperilled the peace of this community—had you pleaded guilty after having time for reflection, I should have thought it my duty to consider that plea of guilty as an indication of submission to the law of the land ; that it would have a good effect by way of public example, and that it would have justified me in passing upon you a sentence much less severe than that which your guilt really deserves. I do not know whether you have, any of you, yet reflected upon the character of the offence you have committed, apart from any prejudice you may have of a national or religious character. But let me tell you that according to the law of this land, and of every other well governed country, yon have brought yourselves into this kind of predicament, that if it had not pleased Providence to prevent any of the blows which were struck ending in the death of any one of the persons assailed you would have been in point of law guilty of murder. If the death of any man had resulted from the promiscuous use of those weapons, every man of you would in the eye of the law, have been guilty of murder. This is a thing for you to reflect upon, as well as those persons outside who may be of your way of thinking in religion and politics, and thus share your ideas or temptations to disturb the peace of the community. The evidence given in this case, although no death occurred, would have been amply sufficient to justify a prosecution 'for malicious wounding with intent to do greivous bodily harm, and then again you and each of you would have been liable to a long period of penal servitude. Had there been reasons for believing that a light sentence might be as likely to prevent a recurrence of this kind of thing as a substantial one, I should have been only too happy to accept them. But I have thrown upon the representatives of the Crown the responsibility of intimating to me their opinions as to the necessity for a substantial punishment. God forbid that I should assist the Government in anyway to pass anything like a vindictive punishment upon wrongdoers, hut I must take the facts as I find them before me, disclosing a riot of considerable seriousness and an assault of a most dangerous character. I must therefore make your sentence substantial, as jmu have not submitted yourselves to the law by pleading guilty, and the arm of the law must be stretched forth to put a stop to this kind of thing. I cannot help it if one portion of the public, who may have prejudices in favour of one class of persons as against another, blame me for too great a leniency in this case. I shall impose a substantial sentence, bxit one which, under the circumstances, I do not think by any means sevei’e. I think it right to make a distinction among the prisoners, because it is perfectly certain that in all matters men follow leaders. I think it is ex-

ceedingly probable we have not here the most guilty persons; there are, perhaps, people behind who are more guilty than the prisoners at the bar. But, there were two or three persons who rendered themselves very prominent in the affair. There were about thirty men concerned in the attack, and Stephen Barrett was marked out as being very active. Cuddihy, too, seemed to be one of the leaders of the party, and he it was who first took the flag and gave directions in the matter. Hanley • and M'Avey also appeared to have been active participators in the disturbance, and Barratt was shown to have used expressions, indicating that he was actually fool enough to contemplate that a body of men were going to take possession of this town. It is scarcely possible to understand in a population like ours, how men could be such positive idiots, even if ten times the number of this body of men, to suppose that they could for any period of time set at defiance all constituted authority. At the same time men who go about like that are dangerous to a community. As I said before, I shall make a distinction in the cases of some of the prisoners. The sentence of the Court is that M'Ayey, Hanley, Cuddihy, and Barrett, be sentenced to eighteen months, and the remainder of the prisoners to twelve months’ imprisonment with hard labor. The prisoners were then removed.