Crown Calls Evidence To Rebut Davis’s Claim

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30364, 13 February 1964, Page 14

Crown Calls Evidence To Rebut Davis’s Claim

. (New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, February 12. The Chief Justice (Sir Harold Barrowclough) granted the Grown leave to call new evidence after a statement from the dock yesterday by Maurice Albert Davis, aged 30, a motormechanic, in which he claimed that<a man named Macdonald, now in .Sydney, had confessed to the killing of Peter Carthew Banham, at Nelson on February 20, 1963.

A detective-sergeant, Robert Leslie Nelson Lark, of Wellington, said that on May 26, 1963, he received a request from the New South Wales Police Department to make inquiries in Wellington about a man of the name of Williajn MacDonald; alias David Ernest Allan, who had been arrested in Melbourne, Australia, on May 14, J 963, and who had been charged with a murder committed in New South Wales on or about November 12. 1962. Lark said his information from Australia was that it Whs believed that MacDonald had arrived in Wellington in the early days of January, 1963, and that while in this city had been employed by the railways in Wellington. Later, on instructions from Detective Chief Inspector Knapp, he made further inquiries in August, 1963. Mr R. C. Savage, for the Crown: Did your original instructions have any reference to the subject matter of this trial? Lark: No. Time-sheets Ivan George Adams, of Mill road, Petone, employed at the Wellington railway goods shed as a sub-foreman, said that in February, 1963, his duties related to employment of staff. .■ Shown a photograph, he said: “That man was employed by myself under the name David Ernest Allan.”

On January 8, 1963, he had taken Allan into employment which terminated on March

During February, Allan had been working there. His working hours were from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., with one hour for lunch.

Shown two documents, Adams said that one was a daily sheet for the allocation of men required in different parts of the yard. The other consisted of several time-sheets made out by each member of the staff in his own handwriting. Adams was then asked to explain what was the procedure when a man came to work as far as his personal dealings with him were concerned. Adams said the normal procedure was that the member taking the staff in had the day sheet in front of him.

Opposite on the desk were the time-books containing sheets. Each member had to turn to his sheet and fill in according to his arrival until noon.

Adams was asked to look at the time sheet and the dav sheet for February 20. 1963.

He said that the name Allan was on the day sheet. Mr Savage: Is there a time sheet for Allan for February 21?

Adams: There is. Is there an entry for Allan on the dayrsheet?—There is. Whose writing?—ln my writing. Not Late Asked if there could be any question that Allan did not report for work at 8 a.m.

on February 21, Adams said: “Definitely not He must have been there.” On that day the storeman Allan had to report to was Mr Simpson, Adams said. Mr Savage: Could there be any question of a man arriving late by any substantial time and not. being noted in the day sheet or time sheet? Adams: No. “If a man were half an hour late he would immediately be. told to book the time of his arrival correctly,” said Adams. Would you make any entry on your day sheet?—Yes. Right alongside his name. Adams said that there was no mention of reporting late for February 21.' The Chief Justice: Are you able to say within a quarter of an hour what time Allan reported for duty on February 21?—I could. What time?—Within two minutes either side of 8 a.m. In reply to Mr Savage, Adams said: “We have the men shown who arrived at 8.5 a.m. and Allan’s name is ahead of these men.” Finishing Time Allan’s finishing time' bn February 20 was shown at 5 p.m. It was initialled by Adams. Allan had been at work and finished at 5 p.m. on February 20, and at work, starting at 8 a.m. on February 21. Cross-examined by Mr J. G. Leggat. for Davis, Adams agreed that he did not remember Allan reporting for work or . signing off on either of those days. He relied for his evidence simply upon the'record produced.

His Honour: When you made such entries as you did make oh February 20, did you know this ■ man whom you have identified in the photograph? Were you in a position to say “yes, that is Allan who has signed on and not some stranger?” Adams: Certainly.

You knew him?—Yes. You are quite confident that the man who signed on that morning was Allan and not somebody else?—Yes, definitely. It was that man. Leslie Benbow Dew, of Tew place, Porirua, said he was employed at the Wellington railways goods shed as sub-foreman. His duties included allocation of railway waggons.

Shown a photograph, he said: “By the photograph, I would say he is Allan.” Asked to look at a timesheet for February 20, he said it showed that Allan started work at 8 a.m.

An entry on the other daily sheet for the day to respect of Allan was . in Dew’s writing. He had made it when Allan came in to sign his time-sheet. If a man were more than 10 minutes late, Dew said, he would have recorded it. There was no such record for. Allan for February 20. Mr' Savage: Can you say from these ' entries whether D. E. Align, the man in the photograph, was at work at

8 a.m. on the morning of February 20? Dew: Yes, he was. Can you say if he was at work and finishing at 5 p.m. on February 21?—Yes. Cross-examined, he could not recall Allan on either of the days, February 20 or February 21.

lan McGregor Simpson, ■of Railway avenue, Upper Hutt, said that he was employed by the railways in the Wellington goods yards as a storeman.

It was his duty to allocate various men to various waggons. He recognised Allan in a photograph shown to him and agreed that the name Allan was recorded in his entries in respect of both February 20 and 21. Inquiries In Australia Alfred lan Knapp, detective chief inspector at Wellington, recalled, said that in August, 1963, he had received from the New South Wales Police the alleged confession by Macdonald concerning the murder of Banham.

Mr Savage: Did you receive other information on various aspects of this alleged confession and the man from the New South Wales Police? Knapp: Yes.

You made some inquiries of your own in Australia?— Yes. That was in October of last year. Did your inquiries relate the nature of the crimes alleged by Macdonald?—Yes. As a result of all your inquiries and information, did you take any action?—l took no action other than supply it to the defence.