1964 Awake! - Theocratic Collector.com

fore Magistrate Dickey on June 14, 1963,
and the priest was acquitted. When he told
his story in the witness box he qualified
his threats a little. "I didn't say they would
give you a licking: I said they might give
you a licking: they might receive you with
a teakettle." He also swore there were not
five men with him: only four! Magistrate
Dickey took the view that because the
word "might" was used in the priest's comments,
and there were four men, not five,
this made a difference and so there was
no real threat of violence.
Appeal was then taken to the County
Court, and the case came on for. a new
trial before His Honor Judge Dowell on
December i3, 1963. Mr. and Mrs. Balaski
recounted the story of the tirade from the
priest, Adolph LeBlanc. It was explained
further that they had thereafter left
Wedgeport in their car and had been followed
by LeBlanc and his five men for
three and a half miles.
The priest then entered the witness box
to make his defense. He began by explaining
that all the people in Wedgeport were
members of his church and he was the
parish priest. Such evidence could only be
relevant if the fact of a Catholic majority
placed the priest above the law. Judge
Dowell quickly showed his view of such a
contention, stating, "There is no necessity
putting that on the record, it doesn't matter
what religion the people are. This is
part of Canada and the Criminal Code applies.
These people had a perfect right to
go to Wedgeport. I must determine if they
were threatened. It doesn't matter what
religion the people are. Strike those answers
from the record."
Respecting the threats, the priest partially
denied them. According to him, he
did not say, "They will beat you up," but
admitted he did say, "They might give you
a licking and I will pay their fine." He also
denied having five men with him; it was
JUNE 8, 1964
only four. Judge Dowell remarked: "I wonder
how much difference that makes! Four
men and the priest is five: five men and
the priest is six. Mr. Balaski was alone
with his wife. It seems to me one man
could get just as bad a beating from five
as from six."
Priest LeBlanc was questioned about the
four men he admitted having with him.
Why had he needed them? "To be witnesses."
While he pretended the men were
there as witnesses, the case was tried
twice, once before the magistrate and a
second time before the" County Judge, but
he never at any time called any of the
alleged witnesses.
In summing up the case, counsel for the
priest relied mainly on the fact that he had
used the word "might."
Counsel for Mr. and Mrs. Balaski pointed
out that adding the word "might" really
made no difference; that even if the judge
accepted every word the priest said, he
would still have to be convicted. His evidence
was tantamount to a plea of "guilty."
It was pointed out that he had admitted
his W1lawful purpose of forcing the Balaskis
to leave the municipality against their
will. He admitted having with him four
men, who were really a weapon of violence
in his hands to accomplish his unlawful
object. By illustration it was pointed
out that if a bank robber were holding up
a bank and he pointed his gun at the teller,
saying, 'Give me that money or you might
get shot,' while holding his weapon of violence
in his hand, he would not escape responsibility
for his unlawful act by throwing
in the word "might." The four men
were a weapon of violence like a gun. Similarly
with the argument about the five or
four men: if a bank robber were accused
of holding up a bank with a .45 revolver,
could he escape from the charge of robbery
by showing the weapon he used was a .22
revolver instpwi of a .45? It was still a
13