YOUTHS FINED £l0 EACH.

Shannon News, 6 November 1923, Page 4

YOUTHS FINED £lo EACH.

ASSAULTS ON CHINAMEN.

At the S.M. Court yesterday, before Mr. J. Logan. Stout, S.M., William Rikihana, Harold Knox, Clifford Lloyd, Frederick Edwards, and Harold Baker were charged (1) that on 16th September at} Otaki did assault An Hing; (2) did assault Sue Kee; (3) did wilfully damage a. window to the extent of 255, the property of Sue Gee. Mrf Atmore appeared for Kfkfihana, Knox, and Edwards, Mr. Dunkley for Baker and Mr. Rutherford for Lloyd. Bikihana, Lloyd, and Knox 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 Kee. All pleaded not guilty to damaging the window. Sue Gee stated: I am a fruiterer in business in Otaki. I remember Sunday, September 16th. I noticed someone com'e to the front door at 10.30. ' I went and looked through the window, and saw a man at the door and two or three men on the footpath near a motor-car. I did not open the door. I then noticed that one of the m'en had gone round the back and went to see .who was there. ,1 opened the back door 'when someone threw a rubbish tin at 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 someone threw 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." Euth’erford: When I looked out I could not tell if there was anyone in the car.

■ To. Mr. Dunkley: There were two or three boys, perhaps more. Detective Holmes stated: On 19th September/ I interviewed Baker and Edwards. and they admitted being in ; the car and going to Sue Gee’s shop at 10.15. On the 28th I interviewed Bikihana, Lloyd and Knox and they admitted being occupants of the car that went to the shop. Bikihana admitted r that he went with another to the back of the premises. To Mr. Rutherford: I have lxad a statement from Lloyd that he remained in the car.

To Mr; Atmore: I formed the impression that Knox and Bikihana were the only two who got out of the car. Harold Baker stated: I remember the ; night of the 16th September. With the others we had come back from Levin and pulled up in front of Sue Gee’s premises. Two of boys got out of the car, while Debreceny also, got out and went home. The car stopped to let Debreceny get out. After Rikihana and Knox had run out from tho back of the shop the car was started and we went away. I saw no stono throwing. To Detective Holmes: We had stopped at another Chinaman’s place previous to this —Ah Sue’s. I 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 Gee’s but I did not leave the car. I thpew no stono, and did not 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 disturbs ance was going on. The S.M.: He was not asle'ep because he was tired, was he? Fred. EdwaTds stated: I 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 1 drinks and were “merry.”’ We were just getting over it. Harold Knox stated: I got out of the car* and went to the back of the Chinaman’s. We knocked at the door but Ido not remember if a Chinaman came out or not. We returned to the car. I threw no stone, and did not sec one thrown,

To the S.M.: I cannot remember if the Chinaman came out or not; T had had a, lot of booze.

Asked why he was sure of one matter and not another he said he could oner no explanation. The S.M.: Because damages is attached to one, is that it? Knox said he was sure he threw no stone. Ho 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, the boys be honest? Mr. Atmore: They have b'een 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 been broken by one of the boys and said the fairest way would be to divide the cost of the'damage. Tho 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 share for the damaged window. m.r. Dunkley at this stage pleaded guilty on behalf of Baker on the charge of assault, while tho police withdrew ine case against Edwards. Detective Holmes said on arrival of the party in Otaki the car was stopped and the Chinaman assaulted, it being stated that Rikihana struck him with ;a rake, while a prong was stuck into Ah Hing. The remainder of the party then threw stones.

The S.M.: The boys would mot have, .committed the act had it not*, been for the liquor consumed. AH the boys Were concerned and he did! not feel, inclined to single them out. § Mr. Atmore on behalf of Bikihana,

Knox, and Edwards, addressing the Court> said that the whole occurrence was most regrettable indeed. One hesitated to lay the blame on persons who were not present in the Court, but he thought that His Worship would readily agree that a ’ very large share of the blame for the whole trouble fell on the. publicans, who supplied liquor to the youths. The ihotelkeCpers were thee responsible persons. The law recognised 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 of , liquor,i restriction against supplying youths at any time and restrictions on the sale after certain hours. Boyd when together as these boys were on this occasion did not always act with the same restraint, as when alone. He did not wish to explain away the offences, but he would say emphatically and with the utmost sincerity that the publicans had no right whatever to place liquor within the reach of these boys. It was not fair to the parents who had' brought them up and who were responsible for their behaviour, and towards whom the people of Otaki now looked askance; and it was not fair the hpys themselves). They couldn’t stand drink: No boy couiu, but as soon as they got the liquor the trouble started. Speaking individually Edwards was the son of highly respectable parents, who had lived in the district for many years. The boy was a smart, honest lad and had never been in trouble before. He was hardworking and industrious and had expressed keen regret at his misbehaviour. One charge of assault had been withdrawn and Edwards had taken! only a minor part in the trouble. Bikihana' was also another gOod lad, the son of highly respectable parents, whose ■•■ainer was a . Councillor of the Borough and well-esteemed. The boy had been in trouble once before ,\ but, apart from that had a clean sheet,' Knox was another good lad of well respected citizens 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 boys. H’e concluded by making an earnest appeal to His Worship not to imprison the boys; to give them a chance to go out into the world and vindicate themselves and show what they were made of. He would assure His Worship that if given a chance they would never come 'before the Court again. 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, said Mr. Dunkley, was away at the time, the lad went to a party, met others, and finally got drink. He took no active part in the assaults, and had no criminal intention. He had now resigned a position in a Government department, and he (Mr. Dunkley) asked that lenincy be shown, and that a fine be inflicted instead of imprisonment. Mr. Rutherford on behalf of Lloyd, said the assault was committed as a practical joke and done 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 be 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, ip fact had not touched it since he got into slight trouble, wringing' fowls’ necks, some time ago. His previous character had been good, while on this present charge he had already put in eight days m SE The S.M. said he considered the boys should be given a chance as their previous records had been good. 1 He did 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.