JURY'S VERDICT

PIHA FIRE TRIAL

ACCUSED GUILTY ON TWO COUNTS

ACQUITTED ON ONE

CHARGE

REMANDED FOR SENTENCE

(By Telegraph—Press Association.)

Auckland; May .25. After a retirement of five hours and three-quarters tonight the jury in the Piha trial found Gordon Robert McKay, aged 43, alias Tom Bowlands, wool and hide dealer, and James Arthur Talbot, aged 38, labourer, guilty on the following charges:—(l) that, on or about February 12, they wilfully set fire to a dwelling-house, thereby committing arson; (2) that, on or about February 10, they improperly interfered with a dead human body. They added a strong recommendation of mercy for Talbot in each case.

They found both the accused not guilty on a further charge of conspiring by deceit to defraud the Mutual Life and Citizens' Insurance Co., Ltd., Sydney,- of £25,500 by representing that McKay was dead. Both the accused were remanded for sentence.

When the presentation of the Crown's case ended, both defending counsel said that they did not intend to call. evidence. They addressed the jury, after which his Honour Mr. Justice Fair summed up, and the jury retired at 5.15 p.m., returning at 11 pjn.

Mr. Meredith said he did not propose to address the jury.

In'a very brief address, Mr. Noble said the case had aroused tremendous interest and was overladen with prejudice., The criminal law of New Zealand provided that no man was called on to prove his innocence. The Crown must prove the case without the assistance of the accused. The Crown's case was w.holly circumstantial. There was no direct evidence whatever. There had merely been a lot of guessing and deduction in an ondeavour to prove that the two accused had interfered with the body of Shine. No witness had seen a body.

■'/] f j

"So far as arson was concerned, McKay was not there at all when the fire occurred," said Mr. Noble. "Even the evidence which, my learned friend brought says that.

"There is not one particle of evidence to show that McKay was there .when the fire started. How could a man who was not there start a fire?"

Concerning the charge of conspiracy, Mr. Noble invited the jury to say by its verdict whether there was any definite agreement between the accused to coyne to New Zealand and commit a crime so • that they could defraud insurance companies and return to Australia. The effect of the conspiracy charge.was not in New Zealand at all. If they did not believe that conspiracy existed at all they would on the evidence return a verdict of not guilty. If they wished to say that conspiracy took place in Australia, then he (counsel) would be more than satisfied. He asked that they return.a verdict of not guilty on all charges, S»KESS PUBLICITY. A challenge of the Crown's theory about Talbot and a statement that the evidence was purely circumstantial | were made by Mr, Terry in his ad-: dress to the jury. ' General observa- i tions, which, he said, he felt constrained to make, prefaced Mr. Terry's address. Whether it was the presence, of large insurance interests or not, he could not say, but he asserted that the prominence given for a period of some three weeks by the Press throughout the Dominion and in Australia had reacted very gravely to the detriment of the accused. He regretted to say —and this was supported by the detectives concerned in the case —that the articles in some of the newspapers were not only sensational and speculative, but also inaccurate and misleading. As a result the jury was asked to perform one of the most difficult intellectual processes known —to erase all preconceived notions, to banish all antecedent bias, to efface first impressions, andjto address themselves solely to the testimony given in the court. Discussing the nature of the charges, Mr. Terry referred to the fact that the maximum, decreed by the Legislature for arson was life imprisonment. Relatively the other charges were less grave in the matter of punishment. The evidence, he said, was purely circumstantial. No witness had come forward to say that both or either of the accused actually committed the crimes with which they were charged, but the Crown produced a number of witnesses deposing to a series of incidents, which they endeavoured to link together and urge that the coincidences were so manifest that guilt had been established. CIRCUMSTANTIAL, EVIDENCE. It was true that circumstantial evidence was relied on considerably in the Dominion's courts, but it was only valuable when the chain of coincidence and circumstance was strong in every link. The Crown in this case were compelled to assert a theory. They alleged that a conspiracy existed whereby the two accused set out to defraud insurance companies of a large sum of money. Conspiracy normally involved collusion between two parties to secure a common objective in their common interest. In regard to this, a serious challenge could be made to the theory of the Crown. McKay was insured for £40,000, but it was impossible for Talbot to benefit financially, even assuming the scheme were successful. The Crown theory, therefore, meant that Talbot agreed to leave Australia, come to New Zealand, involve himself in a crime, return to Australia, support a claim for insurance, be pursued, and harassed by insurance officials and police, without certainty, and with little prospect, of any financial advantage. One could not. believe that his association, or friendship with the accused, McKay, would possibly lead him into such a foolish step. In his declaration, on arrival in New Zealand, Talbot mentioned his purpose as a visitor, and the fact that he brought a sporting gun and swimming costume and inquired about fishing indicated that he had no idea of the possible trend that events might take. It was submitted on his behalf that all the facts relating to his association with McKay in New Zealand were .capable of an innocent interpretation.

Passing in detail to the evidence, Mr. Terry said it was most significant the relation to two crucial in-

-quirieaubraugh-t-. .out. in- -evidence- name' ly, those made by McKay at the cemetery and at the late Patrick Henry Shine's house, Talbot was not present. Further, the agent for the Piha bach and his wife made a noteworthy statement that Talbot was very silent. That he hardly spoke at all. All the letting, payment of rent, delivery of keys was with-one person, and so it went on in every other matter. The rental of the car and the payment for it, the hiring or the garage and the payment for it, were McKay's. Talbot certainly acted independently when he inquired in Woodlands Road for a garage, but he made it clear he was dependent on the decision of another party.

The Crown had completely failed to establish that Talbot in any way knew of the existence of the* package alleged to have been seen in Mrs. Hearling's garage. All witnesses agreed that he was greatly agitated at the time of the fire, and it seemed strange that, if ha had had any part in incendiarism, he should have so soon sought assistance. During this phase of his address, Mr. Terry said he wished to warn the jury that he was not passing any opinion on the case as it ■concerned McKay. JUDGE'S' .SUMMING. UP. ■' A comprehensive survey of the case, its legal aspects, and the duty of the jury, was given by Mr. Justice Fair in his summing up. His Honour said the evidence brought by the Crown was circumstantial evidence, drawn from a large number of facts, from which, the Crown said, could only, be drawn the inference that each of the accused was guilty of the offences with which he was charged. Direct evidence, the evidence of witnesses who had seen something, was not, in a large number of cases, readily available, and a case had often to be proved with,circumstantial evidence. It often happened that, if each fact ia circumstantial evidence were taken by itself, it would not carry the case very far. but if one were to. take a mass of facts cumulatively it might afford proof of guilt of an accused person. Counsel had been correct in stating that the onus-of proof was on the Crown, his Honour continued. If there was any doubt, the accused were entitled to the'^benefit of it.: He would also warn the jury to exclude from its mind any other knowledge other than that sefcured during the relation of evidence by witnesses. The matter should be approached impartially. Each charge had to be considered separately, and in the light of the evidence applicable to the charge. : It would be wise to consider first the charge of improperly interfering with Shine's remains, in relation to McKay, and him alone; then the charge of 1 arson. When the jurymen had considered the two counts in relation to McKay, they then should consider them in relation to Talbot, and the evidence against him. They then should turn to the third count, conspiracy to defraud, which had certain special features.

■| "The law says that either both have ; to be ■corivlcteU of conspiracy, or ; neither," his Honour said. "The ' charge is that McKay and Talbot con- ' spired each, with the other. You will ' be careful to avoid a; feeling that, if " you find the accused, guilty on one ■ account, you should find him guilty on the second. Consider them inde- > pendently, though much of the cvi- ! dence is directed towards both." i He added that, with the first. two* I counts, statements-by Talbot: were : not admissible- against McKay. It wass ; 4lie, '■ duty of the Crown to leave no gaps* . but to connect up each link Iwith i every other. They might think. ■ 'that the majority of the evidence'stood un- ■ contradicted, and established the • charges which the Crown made.,. In regard to the charge of interfer- : ing with a. dead., human body, against ;■ McKay, therfe was * evidence, not seriously questioned, that McKay mii quired on the morning of February . 9 about Shine's burial place, and that he questioned Shine's son about his father's teeth. There was evidence that McKay hired a rental car, and that both the accused made inquiries for a garage at Avondale, though they were living at Freeman's Bay. McKay was seen leaving Mrs: Hearling's garage with Talbot at 3 o'clock on the Saturday afternoon, and, after that, a sacking bundle was gone. It had been said that there was no evidence to show that the bundle was taken at that time, but they might think that point relatively unimportant. The Government Analyst gave evidence that the fire appeared to have attained a heat . far greater than would be expected from the ordinary burning of a house. BODY IN RUINS. The Crown went on to 'prove that the body found in the ruins at Piha was that of Patrick Henry Shine. They might think! that the crucial facts were that the1 remains of a dead body were found in the ruins of the Piha fire, that immediately after the fire McKay disappeared, that he was insured for £40,000, and that he had a wife and family who stood to gain if he died. They were entitled, to consider in the evidence, against McKay that, when arrested, he denied that he was, McKay, gave no explanation of his movements, no explanation of his disappearance after the fire, and no explanation of how the body came to be there. If satisfied on these points, they would find McKay guilty on the count of interfering with a dead body. They would next consider the charge of arson against McKay. For him to be guilty it was not necessary that he should have set fire to the place with his own hands. If they found him guilty of interfering with the body, they might think that the fire was part of a plan and that, though he was not actually present, he had arranged for the fire to take place. As far as Talipot was concerned, they would bear in mind the principle that any person who did anything to aid and abet another in the commission of a crime was liable himself to be convicted of that crime. Did the evidence satisfy them that Talbot aided and abetted McKay in improper interference with a dead body and in the burning of the cottage? The Crown relied on the constant and close association between Talbot and McKay for 12 years at least, and on the close association of the two after they came to Auckland. Talbot was present when the car was hired and assisted in the search for the garage at Avondale, and that might make them think that Talbot would inquire why a garage was being hired in that locality. If they found that the bundle was : in the car on the Saturday afternoon : and was taken out to Piha, the Crown : said that then Talbot must have known : that Shine's dead body was in the car. ] They would remember that Mr. Terry ; had said there was no proof that the bundle was in the car. Could McKay: have taken the body out to Piha without Talbot knowing it? ATTITUDE OF TALBOT. , , So far as the conduct of Talbot at ■ : Piha was concerned, both at the fire ] and afterwards, was it. consistent with 1 his honestly believing it was McKay < who was burned in the bedroom? The ; jury might think that depended upon the preliminary question of whether ] Talbot knew Shine's body was in the 1 car when it went from Mrs.. Hearling's i garage tothe bach at Piha. . ; Some might think .his attitude was j that of a man who either was upset at the loss of his friend, or, if he knew i a fraud was to be attempted, was r anxious that there should be no sus- j picion aroused. If there were any