SUPREME COURT

Grey River Argus, 3 June 1937, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

STILLWATER EXPLOSION Trial of Maurice Moore JURY FAIL TO AGREE The quarterly criminal session of the Supreme Court opened at Greymouth yesterday before His Honor, Mr, Justice Northcroft. The following Grand Jury was empann«Jled: —James Begg Kent (foreman), Edward Airey, Francis George Cooper, James Kyle, Andrew Joseph iWilson, Archibald John MeDowall, Albert Henry McKane, Ashley B. Croudis, Charles Peebles, Eric Souter, Ronald Webber, Leonard John Arm-

strong, Cedric G. Mosley, Hilton Onslow Judd. Hyde Herring, George Frederick Knapp, Frank Benjamin Lawn, Michael Keating, John Henry North. Harold B. Chalk, Stanley A. Sullivan, Kenneth Balehin, Charles He-niy Rose, John Cassells, Gebrge Alfred Webster, Lawrence Inkster, Neil Brodie McCallum, Janies Leitch. His Hotter in his charge to the Grand Jury, said that h e was happy to inform them that the criminal calender was wry light, there being only one criminal case a charge against a man named Moore, of mischief, in wilfully damaging a hous p to the vakie of £3OO. The Grand Jury was not to say whether accused was guilty or not guilty, but to say whether he should b e put on his trial, and he thought' that they would have little difficulty in doing that. It appeared said His Honor that Moor 0 resented being ejected from his, the plac e and threatened to burn the house ddwn. When he. realised that in this way lie would not harm the owner. Mr. Brosnan. he threatened to take other steps to injui-p Brosnan through the property. Moore was living nearby and on the evidence had every opportunity of committing the offeue p laid against him. The place was eventually destroyed by four explosions of gelignite one night- aid it had been ascertained that the day previously he had bought explosives. When spoken to by the police, accused was evasive, showing considerable disquiet, if not a. guilty conscience. There was no doubt as to the very unsatisfactory nature of accused’s actions. He thought that the jury should find that h e be placed on his trial to present such defence as h„ might have.

After a retirement of 37 minutes, the Grand Jury returned with a true bill against Maurice Moore. MJauriee- Moore, 65, was charged that at Arnold River, near Stillwater on March 5, 1937. he wilfully damaged by explosive a six-roomed house valued at £3OO. the property of Janies Deen Brosnan. The ease was heard in thei Magistrate’s .Court at Greymouth on May 18 last, when accused pleaded not guilty and was committed for trial. Accused pleaded not guilty.

The -Crown case- was conducted by Mr F. A. Kitchingham and Mr J. W. Hannan appeared for accused.

The following Common Jury was empanneUed:—Jamas Patterson (foreman), (Walter Leslie Hughes, George Arthur Brown. Norman Thomas Hayes, James Hazeldine, James Hewlett, George Hughes. Desmond G. Cooper, Avon Charlwood Caldow. Robert Nelson Anderson. Peter Claude Thompson, James Harold Holmes.

Six prospective jurors were challenged by- Mr Hannan and six were ordered to stand aside by Mr. Kitehingham. The history of the property was traced by Mr. Kitchingham in his opening address to the Jury. The Crpwn ease was to the effect that Moore destroyed th p . hous p by means of explosives, this being the culmination' of hostility on the part of Moore against Brosnan. He submitted that accused’s inability to produce the explosives he had purchased and that by hi s threats, to blow up the house so that Brosnan would not get the insurance, accused should be convicted.

Similar e vidence to that given at the lower court hearing) was tendered by John Edgar Rose, photographer, Greymouth; James Deen Brosnan. Public Works land purchase officer, W'ejlington; Neil Ramsay, war pensioner, Paroa; and a former occupier of the dwellinghouse owned by Brosnan, Alan McLean, who took over the lease from Ramsay; Thomas Steel Craig, farmer, of Matai; Leslie Jackson. hardware salesman, employed by Ashby Bergh and Co Ltd, Greymouth; Detective Sergeant H. E, Knight; and Constable J. Rodgers. This concluded' the Crown ease.

Mr Hannan said that he did not pro. pose to call any evidence. Mr Kitchingham began his address to the jury at 2.45 p.m., concluding a r , 8 p.m.

Mr Hannan said that there was no direct evidence, except that the house was destroyed. There was no one pre. sent, to witness the destruction and no evidence to show how if was destroyed. The Crown therefore relied on eircum. stantial evidence which was very meagre. This circumstantial evidence came under the heading of the threatand the purchase of the gelignite the day the house was blown up. The threats 'had been made some two years 1 prior to the destruction of the house. Accused, he said, had openly admitted buying the explosives nt Ashby Bergh’s. There was no evidence that the type of explosive brought by Moore '■ was the same which destroyed the house. He admitted' that th P evidence ' ,of the Crown was not even strong [enough to point the finger of su piciou fit accused. Mr Hannan concluded his address at 3.15 p.m. His Honour, in summing up, said it was the duty of the jury to consider the undisputed faef.-i as placed befoie them, and' draw the inference .from these, as to whether they considered accused guilty or not. It was quite clear i.Vat somebody had committed a erime, [when the house was blown up by four [separate explosion >. L was done by , somebody wh 0 had a purpose in doing jit, an-di by someone who had an oppor. tunit.v la doing it. Accused had pur. chased gel'gnit P and declined to give satisfactory statements as an. innocent man would have been desperate to give in regard to its disposal or where, abouts. Even though it might b P pos. sible for the jurors to have a certain amount, of sympathy for accused as to whether he was rightly or wrongly ejected', it was not the duty of th.? jur.,to consider whether he had been haish. ly treated o r that he thought he m'ght have been harshly treated. It was the duty of the- jury to find o n the evidene e whether he did destrov ‘he pro. |>ert,y. It was not merely the des. truetion of the property, but also Ihe danger to the traffic on'the road. Any. Ithing might have happened. It was -'i 'deplorabl P proceeding and wa ■ not to be tolerated in a decent cnniniiin’fv. ,If the jury found that accused com. mitted the crime, no matter how sorry they might feel for him, they must find him guilty. If, on the other hand, and doubts were entertained I hen accused was entitled to that doubt. His Honour’s address la-tod 25 minutes. The jury retired at 3.40 p.m. The jury retired at 3 40 p.m., and al 5.30 p.m., returned asking for further direction on several points. The foreman said that the fir I po nt was the exact time at which the pris. oner was last, accounted for on the nighf. of the explosion. H's Honour read pari of accused’s statement, i u which he stated he returned home from Greymouth about 5.30 p.m., and after ten'left home and went to hi-- claim and stayed the night in Gamble’s hut. When it was getting dark he heard three shots. Asked if the jury- eould have infor. mafion as to how far it was to the claim from Moore’s house. His Honour said that, no evidence had been tender, ed in that re peet. The jury foreman said' that some of the jury had disagreed as to whether any traces of a fuse eould be found if gelignite had been used.

His Honour .said that he eould see no possible relevancy in whether the police found fuse or not. The jury again retired, and return, ed' at 7.45 p.m., having failed to ieaeh an agreement. “We ar P quiet unable to come to any agreement at all.” said the foreman when asked for their verdict. His Honour asked if it was I'kely that if the jury took longer eould they come to any agreement. The foreman: It is impossible to come to any dec’sioir. His Honour Very well, you will be discharged from attendance on this cascv Mr Kitchingham moved for a new trial. His Honour said that ther P would be an order made for a. new trial. He took it that it would be convenient to proceed at the present sitting. Mr K'tehingham; Ye-? Sir. The Crown prosecutor pointed out that there were only 23 juiors ineltiding the twelve now serving on the civil ca-e. He took it that His Honour would wait unitl after the civil case was finished before c-mpannelling the new jury. His Honour said that 1 )C would discuss (hat matter in the morning. Mr Hannan asked for renewal of bail, which was granted in self £2OO and two sureties of £lOO each.