THE TROUBLE AT WAIHI.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIV, Issue 45, 17 October 1912, Page 8

THE TROUBLE AT WAIHI.

THE HATPIN CASE. (Per Press Association.) Waihi, October IG. Further evidence was adduced in the charge of assault preferred against Delaney. Alma Gregory, aged ten, a step-sis-ter of the complainant, and Mona Gregory, aged Id, gave evidence corroborative of that of the previous witness. Gnndgi Frederick Neil, a striker on picket duty, said that he saw Delaney grab decisis Beanies by the shoulders. He considered that she was handled roughly, and interfered. A scuffle ensued, during which blows were exchanged. While strnggl’ng on the ground another man pulled Delaney off. Both the girl and Delaney had appeared to he angry. He did not think he did anything to cause a fight, heyotul interfering between Delaney and the girl. * Under cross-examination by Mr Cotter, witness said that a picket’s duties were to try and persuade the men not to go to work, and there had to be perMsent “booing” as part of the tactics.

j In answer to further quest.ons, witness said that it was not a small coterie of men who were practising these tactics. There was a large organisation. Witness was not working, hut at the same time he was not loafing. He said ho had a. right to “boo” at men going to work while a strike was on. Ho used the term ‘scab” to show his disapproval. He could go back to work if he liked. He intended to pursue these tactics, and did not consider them unlawful. If he was convinced these tactics were unlawful, asked counsel, would witness continue them ? Witness said that he would not be prepared to discontinue them until compelled to do so. Witness was not aware that women were put to the front to use the term “scab,” leaving the men practically in the background, behind the skirts of the females. Ho attended the demonstration against the workers on Tuesday afternoon, but would not be prepared to say whether women or men predominated in ‘booing” and calling out “scab.” Pickets were not instructed to indulge in ‘booing.” iAil they were told to do was to meet the workers and try and persuade them that they were doing wrong. Nevertheless he had taken part in “booing” at a demonstration. Describing the alleged assault, witness said that he did not see Beam os p’ck up a stone. Under similar circumsiauces he would have acted as Delaney had, and prevented the woman I'rom throwing the stone. His interference with Delaney had been the cause of a rough and tumble. At the time he was not aware that Delaney was preventing Beanies from throwing a stone. The Magistrate, addressing witness, reminded him that it was against the law to use offensive terms to people in the public streets. The law was quite clear on the point. The law was made for the good of everybody. The same law that punished was the same law that protected. William Dare, the next witness, said that he was on picket duty in the vicinity of the alleged assault. His duty was to try to convert workers. He had given up he conversion of Delaney. The latter was a “scab,” and he would continue to call him a “scab.” Witness saw Delaney attempt to kick complainant, and .afterwards saw Neil and Delaney struggling. Both fell, and witness picked up Delaney and advised him to go hoino. Under cross-examination, witness took, strong exception to Mr Cotter calling him a loafer. Men had no right to go to work while a strike was on. The Court adjourned until to-mor-row morning. ,