CHARGE OF BLOWING UP HOUSE

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 261, 31 July 1937, Page 13

CHARGE OF BLOWING UP HOUSE

Man Found Guilty at Third Trial REMANDED FOR SENTENCE By Telegraph—Press Association. Christchurch, July 30. On his third trial on a charge of blowing up a house at Stillwater, Maurice Moore was found guilty by a jury in the Supreme Court at Christchurch to-day. A recommendation for mercy was made. Moore, who is a bricklayer. of Stillwater, had been tried twice on the West Coast, but each time the jury failed to agree. The charge was that on March 5, 1937. near the Arnold River bridge on the GreymouthReefton road at Stillwater, Moore wilfully damaged a dwelling-house owned by James Deen Brosnan to the extent of £5OO, thereby committing mischief. Mr. A. W. Brown, for the Crown, said that the evidence would show that Moore purchased explosives, took them to the house, placed them in various parts of the building, and blew it to pieces. After evidence had been heard, Mr. C. S. Thomas, for accused, said that the Crown’s case rested on accused’s threats and his purchase of gelignite. The only definite threat to do anything to the house was made in 1928, and it would be absurd to convict him for it nine years later. Mr. Justice Northcroft, summing up, said it was true there was no evidence that Moore had actually been seen committing the crime alleged, but if no one was to be convicted unless seen committing an offence then an enormous amount of crime would go undetected. In this case the Crown depended on what was known as circumstantial evidence. There were many cases in which circumstantial evidence was stronger than evidence coming from au eye-witness. A good deal had been made, irrelevantly he was afraid, of the earlier history of Moore’s association with the house. If that earlier history woke any sympathy for the accused, then the jury should dismiss that sympathy. His Honour reviewed the evidence for the Crown under four heads, evidence of motive, opportunity, accused’s threats and his attitude as consistent with guilt. Someone undoubtedly had committed this crime deliberately and only someone with a very strong motive would have done it because, whoever it was, he was running a very great risk. The Crown submitted that the only man with that motive was Moore. The jury retired at 4.20 p.m. aud returned at 5.50 p.m. with a verdict of guilty and a recommendation for mercy. Prisoner was remanded for sentence.