TRIAL OF WILLIAM CONNELLY.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 13428, 21 May 1909, Page 8

TRIAL OF WILLIAM CONNELLY.

TEN YEARS' IMPRISONMENT FOR

MANSLAUGHTER

The trial of William Connelly, charged with tho murder of Ernest John Bourke, at Westport, on May Bth, 1008, was resumed before Mr Justice Denniston at tho Supreme Court yesterday morning, at 10.30.

Mr T. W. Strinser, K.C., conducted the case for the Crown, and Sir A. C. Hanlon, with him Mr Donnelly, appeared for tho prisoner. MR HANLON'S ADDRESS. Mr Hanlon addressed the jury on behalf of tho prisoner. He briefly aetailed the case for the Crown and then analysed the evidence given by the Crown's witnesses. Regarding Mrs Pbilhps's evidence, counsel rointed out that"it was a most unlikely story that on a stormy night the man in the shed could have struck a' match and kept it alight, as stated by Mrs Phillips. "He commented on tho tact that Mrs Phillips had not communicated to the polico the next day with regard to the peculiar and suspicious incidents she stated that she had seen. Her illness, counsel added, was not sufficient excuse for her silence: it was a iame and decrepit excuse. It was an extraordinary thing that Mrs Maria Pearce, who, according to Mrs Phillips, was standing near the waggon on the same 6ido of the street as the shed, and near it, had not been called, and could not now bo cnllcd. Counsel recapitulated the chief points in Connelly's statement. , He admitted that Connelly had made a lot of different statements; but he was an illiterate youth, and did not appear to have a great deal of intelligence. That being so, he was the sort of fellow who would make varying statements. But Connelly lmd told the same story all the time, and though attempts had been made to shake it, it had not beeu shaken to any material extent. Dealing with tho fact that neither Hollinen nor Andersen had civen evidence on their own behalf at Nelson, counsel said that tho reason that they had not done so was that they were afraid to go into the witness-box, and the reason they were afraid was in view of the evidence which had been adduced. The prosecution at Hokitika had grossly abused their privilege of ordering persons called toact as. jurors to stand aside, as out of 46 ocople called, the prosecution ordered 29 to stand aside; the result was that Connelly had been tried by a jury of Haakonson's own choosing. After being found guilty of perjury, and having been sentenced to seven years, Connelly had been taken from tho Court, no , dbuDt dejected and miserable and wretched, and the chief-detective pf tho New Zealand police force%ad seen him. Did they believe that Connelly, in reply to the detective as to whether lie had been rightly or wrongly convicted, had said, "Rightly, sir." Did they believe that an illiterate person would reply in such terms. And then, "I alone murdered BourW' —that was nnt ihe language of an illiterate youth. Coun-sel did not attribute to Detective Mcllveney any but the best intentions? The detective hod had no intention to do anything dishonourable or unfair . to Connelly. He (counsel) would he* tho last to suggest that. Ho asked them to consider tho confession in conjunction with the rest of the evidence in the case, and that evidence must support the statements in tho confession before - they could accept tho confession as true. The preponderance of evidence showed that when Connelly returned to the hotel ho was cool, and ye'i- was supposed to have committed a murder in the meantime. Where was the motive? • The Crown suggested robbery. Bourke was. not likely to have sixpence, seeing that ho was turned out of the hotel. On tho evidence of thu Crown alone, counsel could confidently have claimed a verdict. But they had come with on affirmative defence, showing not only that Connelly did not commit the crime, but they indicated who were really the perpetrators. Halliuen and Andersen were found with jblood on their clothes, [and iti was suggested that Hallinen got blood on him in the fish shop row- Council commented upon [ Hallinen's anxiety to get Connelly away from the constable after his arrest, and suggested that he was aware that Connelly knew what had taken placo the previous night, and, therefore, desired to get him out of the hands of the authorities. Tho statement of Hallinen to Cockery on the following day described exactly the manner in which Bourko was done to death. If Hallineu had- got the blood seen on him during the fishshon row immediately before they went into tho bar, the blood would have been wet. Instead of that they had the testimony of Miss Harcourt, ■who stated that the blood stains on Hallinen were not wet, but wero rea and fresh-looking. That .would coincide with the suggestion that Hallinen was concerned in the killing of Bourke two hours earlier. No attempt had been made to explain the blood on Andersen, who was not ill tho fish shop rowj The chief witness now in support of the alibi was Haakonson, who laid the information for perjury against Connelly. The most significant thing, however, was the definite evidence of Beswick; wno stated" that Halliuen and Andersen came to the theatre at 9.15 and went to the two shilling seats. They tendered two-shilling admission tickets— not passes. Could the jury believe that those men were in the shilling portion and had afterwards purchased two-shilling tickets. The explanation wa.< that, they wero never in" the theatre until they were admitted at 9.15 by Beswick. The jury had not to take the confession. alone, and even if it were Connelly's, word for word, they would still look at the evidence and find the facts pointed in another direction. MR STRINGER'S ADDRESS. Mr Strineer said the case for the Crown -was very simple. It was contended that Connelly took Bourke out to rob him, and afterwards beat and kicked him, causing his death. Then there was the confession, which the Crown regarded as most satisfactory evidence, looking at the Hurroundina circumstances. Where confessions were becked up by circumstantial evidence I they very rarely led juries astray. The Crown averred that Connelly and Murray went into tho hotel at eight o'clock and ordered liquor. A drunken man was lying there, and he was ordered to go to his lodging by Mrs Ayres. Connelly left his drink and took Bourke in the direction of the shed. Ho agreed with Mr Hanlon that it was unfortunate that the two men had not been put into the witness box at Selson, but as hie friend knew, there was nothing that exercised the mind of defending counsel so much as the question whether or not he should put the accused in the box. But neither. Hafliuen nor Andersen was to blame for that decision, and it was not fair to draw any unfavourable conclusion against them. Referring to Connelly's confession, counsel said that if the spirit of truth could ever have found entrance vi the soul of "this degraded and vicious young fellow," connsel thought that it would be after the Hokitika trial. Counsel did not justify the obtaining of the confession, and he thought if it had been realised at the time that it involved a charge of murder it would never have been obtained ; but the confession had been de-. liberately given, had been given with full knowledge of what had taken place at Nelson and Hokitika, and with a full

knowledge that his (Connelly's) counsel was at the very moment trying to get a new trial. Whether the jury found accused . guilty of manslaughter or murder depended on -what his original intention was, what tho malice was. It was a common thing io-find low, depraved men shepherding, drunken men, and, when getting them to a quiet placo assaulting and robbing them. If motive were required, that explanation supplied it. Dealing with the counter-charge against Hallinen «nd Andersen, counsel stated that they disclosed their alibi before ever they were suspected of the crime. Constable Buttar was listening with a greedy ear to the conversation between Hnllinen and Anderson nest morning, and heard them telling a third party of their movements, which, if investigated by the polico at the time and found to be correct, would have rendered the supposition that they had participated in tho crime impossible. In any case, if it came to a question of credibility, Hallinen and Haakonson, with their clean records, were much more entitled to be Relieved than Connelly. Counsel proceeded to review the evidence for the Crown, and said that the incident of giving the man a knife in lieu of a pass was most important and significant. Counsel for the defence laid great stress upon a portion of Beswick's evidence, to the effect that the men came to the theatre at 9.15 and I presented front seat tickets, but he I omitted to remind the jury that Beswick saw Hallinon and Andorsen outside the theatre shortly before 8 o'clock. Dealing with the case for the defence, counsel said that it depended chiefly on tho allegation that blood had been seen on Hallinen's clothins in Lennio's Hotel before the row in the fish chop; and on the statements as to what had taken placo at Cookery's Hotel the morning after the murder. As to tho bloodstains, counsel contended that the witnesses had confused things, and had transposed the order' of events. The assumption that they were drunk did not explain why others who saw Hallinen and Andersen after Bourke was killed and before they went to Lennie's Hotel had failed to se© any stains on their clothing. As to the performance at Cockery's, it seemed a most extraordinary one, but counsel did not suggest that the witnesses had told a deliberately invented story. The- men were talking practically in different languages, and it could "not be said that Hallinen— vhoee English at that time was not so good as it was now—understood what was said to him by Coekeryj probably there had been a complete misundeistanding as to what he was supposed to be doing. 'Counsel pointed out certain discrepancies in tho evidence of the men who had witnessed. what he described as a "pantomime." Cockery had stated that if he had known of tho fish shoo row he would not have supposed that Hnlliiiini was describing the killing of Bourke. HIS HONOUR'S SUMMING UP. In the course of summing-up, his Honour said the case was one which presented unusual features. »At the Nelson trial of Hallinen and- Andersen, it was unfortunate that they abstained from giving evidence.* He agreed, however, that there was a great responsibility cast upon counsel in deciding whether or not accused persons defended by them should give evidence. It would be very unfair and wrong for tho jury to allow that circumstance, disastrous, though it probably might have been, to influence them in any way.. His Honour commented upon the rejection of 29 jurors out of a panel of 46 at tho time of the private prosecution of Connelly for perjury. In the hands of tho Crown, the speaker said, the privilege was exercised fairly and impartially. He had never seen such a heavy challenge as that by the prosecution. Trie accused challenged six and that left only-eleven jurors available. It was clear, therefore, that the prosecution selected* its own j v ry. The prosecution was interested-in its clients arid not in securing a full and fair trial to the accused-. The prosecution was within its rights in ordering so many jurymen to stand aside. He did not suggest, however, that as a result tho accused did not receive a fair trial. His Honour then read Connelly's confession, and said, that the obtaining of tlie confession was not justifiable. Hβ " did not suggest that there had been any improper intention in obtaining the confession. It was within his own "knowledge that Detective Mcllveney was a keen and zealous officer, who. carried out.' his duties capably and honestly, v and he was satisfied that t3i© detective's mo* tive in asking the questions of Connelly was an honest desire to ascertain the truth regarding this extraordinary casre, and to "show, if-possible, that tho two men whom he (Detective Mcllveney) had been responsible, for having tried for the crime, were innocent. That, ( in • itself, was a proper and praiseworthy motive. His Honour wns of opinion that if it had occurred to either the detective or to Connelly, that the result of the enquiries made by the detective would result in tho present proceedings, the detective -would not have made .the enquiries, and it was extremely improbable that Connelly would have made the statements he did. It was evident that both thought that the Connelly for perjury and the imposition of a seven years' sentence—a. sentence as great as that imposed on Hallinen and Andersen—had vindicated the law and that the lengthy and costly proceedings in the case were at an .end, and , could bo considered closed. That, his Honour felt satisfied, was what they 3iad felt in the matter, and that they' never contemplated that it would go any further. In the circumstances it had been a mistake to get tho confession, but his Honour was satisfied that the confession was honestly obtained. No matter ihow the statement was obtained, no promise or threat was held out, and there was no doubt that the confession came before the jury as legitimate evidence, and was entitled to be given full consideration. TJioy had to consider, however, how far that admission of guilt put of the accused's own mouth would influence them. There was no suggestion that Connelly made a false confession to en deavour to assist Hallinen and Andersen to get rid of the consequences of their conviction. Connelly took the whole burden upon himself, and relieved Hailinen and Andersen of "all share in the transaction. The defence was that, although the- accused was present and was a party to the transaction, he was not responsible for the death of Bourke. Accused therefore fell back upon his original statement and claimed, that that was the true version of what happened. The only real points were: Was Connelly alone in causing Bourke's" death; or was his original statement true? If the jury concluded that he alone was responsible, the question to decide was the measure of his responsibility—was he guilty of murder, or of manslaughter? The fact that Mrs Phillips had been brought forward late in the day had been commented upon. It was a fair inference, in 'the face of tie fact that public opinion was so much exercised on tho West Coast, that evidence di&» covered subsequent to the Nelson trial might possibly be coloured. He did not attach a great dead of importance to the fact that Connelly's confession was not put down in his own words. The broad essential of ConneJJy'e having admitted that he alone was concerned in the crime had been preserved. His Honour then dealt with the Crown's case in rebuttal. It was admitted that if it was proved that Hallinen and Andersen were at the theatre between 7.45 p.m. and 8.15 they could not have committed the crime. On the question of the alibi his Honour pointed out that before there was any charge against Hallinen. and Andersen, Hallinen, according to the evidence of Constable Buttar, had stated that they

had been at the Theatre at 8 o'clock and had come out for a drink at 8.30 p.m. A large number of people had spoken with absoluto-definitencss with regard to the presence of Hallinen. Andersen and Haakonson at the theatre. Dealing with the case for the defence, his Honour said that Miss Harcourt's evidence as to seeing bloodstains on Hallinen's hand and clothing before the fish-shop row was important, this being one of the two sheet-anchors of the defence. As to the evidence regarding the pantomimic representation at Cookery's hotel of the killine of Bourse, evidence was not inipugned by the pro«ecut:on, nor wns it suggested that Cockery had invented the story. It was for the jury to determine whether the performance was a repetition, in nsnt'imime, of w-hat had been done to Bourke ISSUES TO THE JURY. Concluding, his Honour put. four issues to tiho jury: — (1) Is the accused guilty or not guilty? If yes, (2) Is he guilty of murder? or (3) Is he guilty of manslmghtej-? (4) If you find him guilty of either, then do you find it is proved that he was assisted, as alleged in his original written statement? Referring to these issues, his Honour said the jury would hnvc to settle whether accused'"took any in the actual assault or in any act that tended towards Bourke's death. His Honour wps not prepared to say that in law the jifry couM not find accused guilty of manslaughter even if they found that he had done it nlnjie. If they found accused cru'lty they Bad to deal with the degree of his jruilt. which was the object of the fourth lesue.

Before trio jury retired t>e foreman nsked if they could have Hallinen's clothes.

Mr Stringer stated tint clothes hnd been eiven b?ek to h ; m when he was rele.o*ed. and that thpro was nothing now but the doctor's description of them.

The iury retired at J3.33 p.m.. Ws Honour's enmTniTis 'in having occupied about two hours and 3 half.

A VEKDICT OF MANSLAUGHTER.

Tho jury returned to tho Court at 7.50 p.m., and th© foreman hand«d to his Honour the result of their deliberations.

Jiis Honour: The jury must bo unanimous. If you find-an answer to question ' i it will assist mc in th-e question of penalty. Of course, it is not imperative that an answer •saouid its given. The main point turns on the new you take of the difference between murder and maaelaughter. It seems to mo that he is guilty of manslaughter. Th© Foreman: We aT© unanimous on the main charges. We aro unanimous on No. 3.

His Honour: I will have to ask you to wait before I discharge you. I must keep you locked up for a certain time. lam glad you hay© not, disagreed. It would be a publio misfortune if the case had to bo tried again. The juryrotired again, and returne< at 8.33. • .

The jury replied to tho issues submitted as follows:—To No. 1, "Guilty"; to No. 2, "Not guilty of murder"; to No. 3, "Guilty of manslaughter" ; and to No. 4, "No." The jury added that they desired to express a very strong recommendation, to mercy. " ~ Th* prisoner stated that he was 19 yeans of age, and had nothing to say vhy sentence should not be passed on him ."-••■

His Honour eaid, addressing Connelly, that after a very o&refui trial, in. respect to which he (Connelly) had received every assistance that ho could expect from counsel, he had been found guilty of manslaughter,; the jury had also found that he- had failed to establish the dtffenpe'h© had set up—that. HalHnen , md Andersen had been with him. Considering l th* history. of the * caee, his ' Honour thought that he ought to express hie entire concurrence with the jury on all these pointe. It had"been impossible to listen to the evidence in the case without coming to tho conclusion that th* verdict of the Hokitika jnvy was justified; and it was clear that the true account of tho transaction was. that disclosed in th© confession which prieoner had. somewhat belatedly, made. Tbd jury had taken a favourable view of prisoner's action; in reoommemding him to mercy they rougi be assumed to have found thaV prisoner acted possibly under the influence of liquor, and certainly without any realisation of the consequence of his - brutality,; to that, end to prieoner'3 age, his Honour thought he ought to give consideration. tl»t)less, prisoner's offenoe had been a very serious- one; indeed.- young as ho was, he had already had-a career of crime. Ho (his Honour) must inflict a substantial sentence, a sentence which to some extent would go beyond tjLe one ho was already serving. ' ; His Honour sentenced prisoner to ten years' imprisonment, the. sent&nco to, be-concurrent with the eent«hoe imposed on him for perjury. H&s Honour thanked the jury for the obvious care and attention they bad brought to this very important case. It Tv-ould probably be a sattefaction to them to feel that their wrdiet confirmed the previous verdict. aiwT placed beyond air reasonable doubt the true nature of the transaction, and finally removed any 'stigma attaching to Hallinen and Acdereen. Their verdict attached no stigma to tho jury which d«alt with the case in Nelson. •