DEFENCE EVIDENCE

Evening Post, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 24, 28 July 1944, Page 6

DEFENCE EVIDENCE

THE REILLY CASE

FOURTH DAY OF TRIAL

The fourth day of the trial of Walter Koy Yv'ebster and Charles i'incn opened this morning in the Supreme Court with a continuation of the crossexamination of Augustus Stephen Farsons, first witness for the defence, by Mr. W. H. Cunningham, Crown Prosecutor. Mr. Cunningham: Have you told us the whole story of your visit to Brougham Street?— You mean when I went to the house? Was anything said there?—! know there were a couple' of words said.' Reilly had said something aboul a frame-up and he thought Staoey's name was mentioned, he continued. Mr. Cunningham: When you first arrived in the taxi at Brougham Street did someone come out of the house? —No. is that true?— Yes. Mr. Cunningham asked him if he had been interviewed by a detective in May, and if he had given an account of what had happened in Brougham Street Parsons said he thought he told him something, but couldn't remember what it was. Previously, in his evidence, he had staled his own car had broken down in Maarama Crescent that night. Mr. Cunningham: Did you tell the detective your car was in Cambridge Terrace, with the taxi parked behind it?— No. It wasn't there. When they went in the taxi to Brougham Street, did anyone come out to. the taxi? Mr. Cunningham asked again. "Not to my knowledge," Parsons replied. Did you tell the detective that when the taxi stopped at Brougham Street a woman cfjne out to the taxi? Did you say that the woman spoke to Mrs. Reilly and asked to "give her five minutes and then to come in"? —No. I didn't say that. And you didn't give that story to the police?— No. If the detective says you gave that story it is untrue?— Yes. Parsons said: "I refuse to answer," when asked if he, had ever been engaged in selling liquor without a licence. "It has nothing to do with the case," he said. His Honour pointed out that certain questions were entitled to be asked. Mr: Cunningham: You have been convicted seven times at least for selling liquor?—No, I think that is wrong. You served a month in gaol on one occasion?— Yes. And were fined £75 on another occasion?— Yes And £50?— Yes. And £10 for assault?— Yes. Were you convicted at Te Kuiti for breaking and entering?— No. Were you convicted in Wellington in 1937 for theft?— Yes. And again in 1939?—N0, I don't think so. And got two years' probation?—l don't remember that. SOLICITOR'S EVIDENCE. The next witness was William John btacey, barrister and solicitor, who said that until some months ago he had instructions in the Reilly litigation. He remembered the preparation of the document for Reilly's signature. "I haven't seen the document, of course," he added. "In my knowledge those documents could not have been prepared before the alieged offence. They could only have been prepared the day after," he continued. "I was consulted about the matter the day after, while on my way to the Magistrate's Court." He had acted for Mrs. Reilly as solicitor in a case of separation proceedings. That was about a year ago and since that date had acted as counsel only. , "When she consulted me in those matters $he was in a state of fear," he said, referring to the separation proceedings. "Her face was covered in bruises and the entire forehead I and the left side of her face with deep I bruises in the left eye." I Mr. Harding: Was that the subject of complaint against her husband?— That and other acts of cruelty. Mr. Joseph: Are you aware that in April of this year Mrs. Reilly had men protecting her? —I did not know at the time. I became aware of it later. MAGISTRATE'S JUDGMENT. Mr. Cunningham: On September 16, 1943, Mr. Goulding delivered his judgment in the separation proceedings?— That is so. Did the Magistrate find that Mrs. Reilly had not suffered any real physical injury and that he did not think she had any serious apprehension at the hands of her husband?—l cannot recall the ex,act finding but if it is in the judgment I accept that. (Witness then read from the finding.) It says, "With the exception of the occasion on June 11, 1943, the complainant does not appear to have suffered any real physical injury, nor do I think she ever had any serious apprehension of such injury at the hands of her husband." The complaint was dismissed?— Yes. Witness said that on, October 9, when Mrs. Reilly, Webster, and Parsons went to Brougham Street, he was not acting as counsel at the time for her. Did you employ Webster to assist her in getting evidence against her husband?— No. I have never employed him. Webster was employed by Mrs Reilly, but he had rung Webster the day before the alleged adultery. He was not concerned in any payments made to Webster. Witness said he did not see the draft of the document. To Mr. Harding, ho said that Mr. West-Walker read the document to him over the telephone. He continued that, as»,a result of a conversation with Mrs. Reilly, -she wanted her husband watched, "and I got. in touch with Webster to arrange for two men to watch the house." That was for the projected divorce? —Not at that time but to watch her husband as she was suspicious of him. His Honour: Did you know whether Reilly had somebody acting for him, a solicitor?— Yes. Mr. Sievwright?—Yes. Is it not the ordinary practice if one knows a solicitor is acting for 'a person you don't go to that person to get a document signed, but you go to the solicitor?— Yes, it is the practice and etiquette. That was not done in this case? — No, but that had nothing to do with me. Avis Margaret Saunders, Mr. WestWalker's typist, said that she typed the documents signed by Reilly on April 27, and took them to Oriental Bay. She waited until they were signed and took them back to the office. WEBSTER IN BOX. Walter Roy Webster said that before his arrest he was employed in a butcher's shop. He first met Mrs. Reilly in October last year. He had been rung up by Mr. Stacey ■ and told that Mrs. Reilly wanted to endeavour to follow Mr. Reilly round and see what he was doing. "Mrs. Reilly got in touch with me," he added. He then told of following Reilly on the evening of October 9 and of going to the flat in Brougham Street with Mrs. Reilly and Parsons. He said that they had frequently heard Reilly make" abusive and threatening remarks to Mrs. Reilly. "At one time Mrs. Reilly was lodged at my home in Cambridge Terrace. That was at my suggestion," he continued. He had overheard a conversation between her and Reilly and as a result "I concluded that Mrs. Reilly was in the way of being hurt." It was after that that ■it was suggested she should go to Cambridge Terrace. "She wanted to be protected all the time," he said. "I wanted to go to the police, but was not allowed to do so. I arranged for friends of mine to be in the house. "There were two objects in having my friends there, one so that Mr. Reilly or the friend who was constantly with him could see the men and see that nothing could happen to her, the second was so nobody could say anything about her and me." Webster then told of a Friday evening when he met Reilly. "At the time in the shop he offered me £50 to withdraw as a witness against him, and then when he could not buy me he suggested having a drink. I said I was not interested. He said, 'You won't come round and discuss it; perhaps you will act as a sort of arbitrator if possible.'. He told me that at any time if I thought I could do any good between them to get in touch with him."

Webster said that he went'to Orien-i tal Bay on March 27 for ."I thought ifj I could have a talk with him we could | come to some terms and see if any- j thing could be arranged which would] be better for both parties." | Questioned regarding his meeting on April 18 with Reilly, he denied saying that Reilly was "for it." "I did not tell him I would put the bashers on him. I had no bashers to put oh him." He also denied threatening Mr. Cadwallader, and denied having a conversation with his wife, as Mrs. Leith had stated in evidence. He said he was not too pleased when he learned on April 26 that he had been joined as a co-respondent in divorce proceedings brought by; Reilly, "as there was no truth in it."? He and Mrs. Reilly decided to go and sec Reilly, the time of calling being subject to getting another person to accompany them, and a car. The time arranged was 7.30 p.m. He thought of Finch, because Finch had a car. He wanted another man as an independent witness. "Or a chaperon?" said Mr. Harding. "Or a bodyguard?" said Mr. Cunningham. They went to Oriental Bay about 7.45 p.m., waited, as they believed Reilly was not home, and then went away. They returned about 11.45 p.m. They all went in. "Mrs. Reilly opened the door with her key, and we all went in and went up the stairs. We went to Mr. Reilly's bedroom. Mrs. Reilly tapped on the door." Finch and Webster were standing nearby. Reilly said he didn't want to have anything to do with her. Reilly called to Mrs. Hadfield to get Mrs. Anderson. Reilly opened the door. Mrs. Reilly went in and the door was locked. "A few seconds later," said witness, "I heard a bump and Mrs. Reilly screamed, 'Come, and help me.' " Webster said he then broke the door down. Mrs. Reilly "just simply ran out. Mr. Reilly rushed out of the room after her, and I just managed to catch the edge of his dressing-gown." The two of them struggled together and they fell. "I was just trying to hang on to him to prevent him going | after his wife." , (Proceeding.). \