DRAMATIC ENDING.

Grey River Argus, 22 July 1922, Page 4

DRAMATIC ENDING.

WANGANUI MURDER CASE CASE AGAINST TOLDY DISMISSED. EVIDENCE TOO WEAK. WANGANUI, July 20. At the trial of I jduis Tolciy, charged with the murder of Chow Yat, Detective Cameron produced a dark tweed overcoat and oilskin which admittedly belonged to Toldy. He quoted a conversation vith Toldy, when the latter said that the neighbours declared they saw him home at six o’clock. The detective said that the neighbours, when consulted by the police, said that the time w r as seven o’clock. Following on tliis the detective told accused that the investigations of his state-

ment proved them to be vitally incorrect, and he, therefore, arrested Toldy. The accused had a half sovereign in his possession. He also produced it on June 2nd, but witness did not then know that Chow Yat had had a half sovereign. He (Cameron) and Detective Quirke had walked from the scene of the murder to Toldy’s home by road in 38 minutes and across the field in 30 minutes. Witness also said that a wash-tub full of soap suds was in the v hare at the time it was visited. Detective-Serge;i nt Quirke’s evidence was on similar lines. lie said that the accused declared he had only two overcoats. When Toldy said Mr Secord saw him on the Wednesday night witness told him it was on the Tuesday night. Inspector Fouhy produced another written statement signed by Toldy, in which the latter said that he was in bed from two to live, and from six till nine on the day of the murder. Senr-Sergeant Lopdell said that Toldy told him he had not gone'as far as Gordon Park Road, and got home at 3 p.m and went to bed. Kwong Chong, Chow Yat's employer, said that Yat neither drank . or gambled. A lady who passed the whare at 5,30 to 5.50 p.m. said a light was burnin g. Wm Stewart, a boy living nearby, said he heard four shots about 5.1“ p.m. and saw two men running along the road in the semi-d: rkness. He told his father la’ter, but nothing was done. Other witnesses said Taat they passed along the road early in the evening, and if Yat’s body had been there, they must have seen it. One witness said he passed a man going at a great rate towards town, but couldn’t tell who it was. Mary O’Donnell said that when cycling home to Long Acre after 10 p.m. she saw a body on the road-side. She had first seen accused in the district on the Monday and again on the Wednesday morning. Richard O’Donnell’s evidence related to tho events of Tuesday and Wednesday, and did not correspond with Toldy’s account. He said that on tho Wednesday he saw Toldy on the road and Toldy went off into some bush, sidling round a tree as O’Donnell passed. Toldy then had a light garbardine overcoat over his arm. On the Friday when he saw Toldy again, the latter seemed confused. To accused’s counsel, witness said that there was no difficulty iu seeing Toldy in tho bush. The hearing was adjourned. YESTERDAY’S PROCEEDINGS WANGANUI, July 21. The hearing of the charge against Toldy for alleged murder was continued to-day. A number of witnesses living in the vicinity gave evidence that they saw the accused at various times in the locality oil the day of the murder and the previous day. Nothing important was elicited. It was understood that the analyist’s report which has not been presented states there was no blood stains on the accused’s clothing. WANGANUI, July 21. The trial of Louis Toldy on the charge of the murder of the Chinaman, Chow Yat, camo to a dramatic conclusion in the Magistrate’s Court today, Mr Hollings, S.M., holding that the Crown had failed to make out a prima facie case, and releasing the accused. The most important ot‘ the witnesses was Detective Nut tai, who said that the clothes belonging to the accused were sent to the Government Bacteriologist, but an analysis had failed to find on them any txace of human blood. When asked to plead, the accused said quietly: “1 am not guilty." Accused’s solicitor, Air W. J. Trendwell, said he felt he would be lacking ■ in his duty if ho did not ask the Magistrate tOitake the responsibility of dismissing Hie information. He knew he was asking the Magistrate to accept no small responsibility, and he knew of no other similar case in which the same request had been made. The Government Analyst’s report was decidedly in the accused’s favour. It wns palpable to everyone that if a jury, on

the evidence, recorded a conviction they would be taking an extreme step. A mass of evidence had been called that the man was seen on May 30, and this evidence had been brought about solely by a statement of the accused to the police, when he told them the story of what he was doing on the 3rd. One would expect a guilty man to tell the police a story which they could not verify. Instead, he told them, to the best of his belief, his movements. All he had said was true down to the minutest instance, except that he made a mistake in some of the (‘vents, and said they happened on the 30th, instead of the 31st. If Toldy wanted to mislead the police, he would have told them false statements. The statements were those of a man who was conscious that the charges were utterly untenable and unfounded. If a man was to be convicted on the statements put forward during the case, then he ventured to say the life of no man would be safe. There was nothing extraordinary about Toldy having been seen on the road, or that he stopped suddenly and decided not. to take the course he followed, and took another course. Yet this was to be thrown up against him, and that he wanted to avoid a man hours before the murder took place. Referring to the evening of the 31st, Mr Treadjvell asked the Magistrate whether he thought it possible Toldy could have committed the murder, and then acted in the careless, callous way which he did. The murder took place about 6, and Toldy was at the tram terminus at 6.40, calmly talking to tramway officials, and acting in a perfectly normal manner. He was again

at the terminus at 8 p.m., talking again in the same unconcerned manner, and there was not sufficient evidence to warrant Toldy being put on his trial. The police were to be commended for the way'" they had done their duty, but all they had brought forward was some evidence that Toldy was seen on the road. Toldy had been in gaol for several weeks. The Magistrate said the evidence in the ease was so helplessly weak, that he did not think it possible for a jury to convict. Mr Marshall said HQ t if the Magistrate said there was no ease to answer, the responsibility ended. The Magistrate: The analyst’s report is against the prosecution. It has helped the prisoner. Mr Marshall said the matter of the overcoat had not been satisfactorily ■x plained. A number of witnesses had sworn that he was carrying another overcoat. The evidence also showed that the accused was avoiding recognition. The Magistrate said the witnesses so described the coat that it had become one of many colours. He asked Mr Marshall whether the Grand Jury would find a true bill. Mr Marshall: “I think they would." The Magistrate: “You would never get a conviction with the common jury. ’ ’ The Magistrate said he felt his responsibility in the matter, but would uot shirk his duty. Mr Marshall said it was not for him to press the matter unduly. However, he thought the Magistrate was accepting a grave responsibility if he dismissed the case. The Magistrate said he would take five minutes to think the matter quietly over in his mind. He did not expect, at this stage, to be asked to dismiss the case. On his return, His Worship said he had given the matter careful aud anxious thought. He would be failing in his duty if he allowed it to go further 3ii the present evidence, which did not ?stablish a prima facie case. He was piito satisfied that no grand jury would ( turn a true bill on the evidence, also hat no common jury would be allow?d to convict. There was a big crowd in the Court hich received the decision with ‘Hear, hears" and hand clapping. In his Coronial capacity, the Magisrate returned a verdict: “That the leath of Chow Yat was due to a bulet wound in the head, inflicted by i person unknown. ’ ’