"I AM INNOCENT"

Evening Star, Issue 17366, 31 May 1920, Page 8

"I AM INNOCENT"

CRIMINAL’S ELOQUENT SPEECH. CHRISTCHURCH INCIDENT. “I am innocent.’ 7 These were the final words, delivered with a due regard for effect, in a most able address given in his own defence by James Henry Sargeant from tne dock of the Supreme Court on Tuesday (says the Christchurch ‘Sun’). Sargeant had been charged with having stu.en a suit of clothes, valued at £ll 11a the property of Patrick M'Cornrick, from the Metropolitan Hotel, Manchester street on February 26. ’The Crown was represented by Mr A. T. Donnelly, and the prisoner conducted his own defence. The evidence showed that Sargeant had been seen by the manager of the hotel. Mr L. M. Gregory, throwing parts of a suit of over a fence that separated the hotel trom an adjoining section. Gregory nad questioned the man conc-eniin" his actions, and the latter said he had"been staying at the hotel, and, being unable to p<.i\ lii& board owing to povortvj wa.s getting art ay. The man did not know who Gregory was. Gregory had gone into the hotel to make inquiries concerning the man s story, and when he returned the man had gone. Gregory gave chase, and came tip with Sargeant m an adjoining stieec. Sargeant denied that lie was the man wanted, and refused to return to the hotel to have investigations made. Then Gregor}' enlisted the assistance of a voting man. William Wright, and a horse and gig were secured, and, after a search. Sergeant was found! in an hotel drinking. Efforts were made to induce him to enter Hi ho refused to do, and bolted. ' Then Wright gave chase and bailed the man up with a revolver, after firing a blank cartridge. He was then gi\cn in cnarge by Gregory and Wright. Sargeant called no evidence in bidown behalf, but his address to the jury was delivered in a clear voice, and showed clearness of tnought, capacity for argument, and a knowledge of how to appeal to the feelings of the jury. He first made a protest against the action of the lawyers keen engaged' to defend him, but had thrown up their briefs; then he averred that ho had served his country in France drew a picture of the battlefields, o£ dea-d comrades, and personal sufferings IT added to these things, he told them that he had buried a young wife after having been married onlv 26 weeks, the jury would understand ‘that there was some explanation for his actions, if they thought such actions were abnormal, even though ho were innocent. He was a stranger in the town, and that was the reason why he could not prove an alibi. If the foreman of the jury found himself in a strange town, knowing no pne. charged with a serious crime, he would find it most , difficult to prove an alibi. After quoting I Bracken’s ‘Not Understood.’ Sargeantcon- ; eluded his peroration with the declaration i I am innocent.” f It was of no avail, however. The Crown 1 case agaanst the accused was complete, and j^the jury returned a verdict of “Guilty.” 1 I hen it transpired that Sargeant was an ! liamtual criminal, and had during his career of crime suffeijpd long terras of I imprisonment for arson* housebreaking, • and theft. • s

His Honor Mr Justice Herdman. in sentencing the prisoner, said that it was a pity that a young man of apparently great ability should choose to live a life of crime. He would 1 impose only a short sentence this time, in the hope -that when the man was free again he would resolve to live an honest life. Sargeant would be sentenced to one year’s imprisonment with hard la nor.