THE CASTLETOWNROCHE TRAGEDY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVI, Issue 6019, 28 March 1885, Page 4

THE CASTLETOWNROCHE TRAGEDY.

The Police Court was crowded on Wednesday, March 18, with persons anxious to hear the case against William Sheehan, accused of the murder of his mother, brother, and sister in Ireland. Sheehan was placed in the dock soon aftor eleven o'clock, and charged with that he did, at Castletownroche, County Cork, Ireland, on or about tho 27th August, 1877, feloniously, and with malice aforethought, kill and murder three persons—Catherine Sheehan, Thomas Sheohan, and Hannah Sheehan.

Mr Superintendent Thomson appeareJ, in conjunction with Mr Hudson VVilliamson, Crown Prosecutor, on behalf of the Crown, Mr Williamson conducting the prosecution. Messrs W. J. Napier and E. W. Burton appeared on behalf of the frisoner, Mr Napier defending him. |William Dunny, Sergeant of the Royal rish Constabulary, stationed at Cork, identified prisoner, with whom he had been acquainted about three months before he left home, and detailed the circumstances leading to a warrant being granted for bis apprehension. Acting in pursuance of thut warrant, he came out to Wellington, in this colony. In Wellington he too- steps to have the warrant endorsed by the Governor. He cot it endorsed by the Chiof Justice and the Premier, and also had tho seal of the colony placed upon it. That warrant authorised him to apprehend William Sheehan if he should be found in the colony, and to bring him before a magistrate.

Detective Walker deposed to arresting tho prisoner on the 22nd December last at Waikomiti, twolvo miles from Auckland, under authority of a provisional warrant

Tho depositions wore read over to the prisoner, who was warned in the usual manner, and in response to the customary challenge said ho had nothing to say. Mr Napier then addressed tho Court in defenco. He questioned the jurisdiction of His Worship, and commenting on tho evidence referred to the iact that the only statemont upon which tho accused could be remanded back to Ireland was that of the lad David Duane. Ho discredited the evidenco of this youth, who was, ho said, a poor, ignorant, half-demented creature, whoso word was not reliable. Mr Napier proceeded to suggest that the probability was that Duane concocted the story in the hope that any service he rendered io clearing up the mystery might lessen his own sentence. He quoted authorities to show that very clear evidence was necessary before a prisoner could be remanded to anothor country under the Fugitive Offenders Act, and held that in this case the evidence was not nearly sufficient. His Worship (Mr H. G. Seth Smith) said the prisoner would be committed to Mount Eden Gaol to await his return to Ireland on a charge of murder. He would not, however, be surrendered for fifteen days, and in the meantime he might apply for a writ of Habeus Corpus, and test the questions raised before tho judge oi the Supremo Court. Prisoner was tber removed from the dock. We understand that Mr Napier has decided to opply to the Supreme Court for a writ of Habeus Corpus in order to further test the points raised.