SHE CASE OF LEONARD SHEARD.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CIX, Issue 13137, 27 May 1903, Page 9

SHE CASE OF LEONARD SHEARD.

TO THE EDITOm Sir,—Absence from town prevent?;* ms from seeing ap4 answering J"| T A. Petherbridgs’s letter yesterday/ Ido not doubt for a scßomeni that j|r Pethsrbriclga writes With tha best of intentions, and with tho Jesire to disabuse my mind of wha t ho considers erroneous ideas. I could wish, therefore that in regard to matters of fact he had been more accurate and in regard to matters Of opinion lia had been less looso and general. To deal with one instance of tho latter: *The spectators who heard the evidence Jire unanimous -on the question of Sheatd's guilt,” says Mr Petherbridge. By whom Was the veto taken? I know of one gentleman, a University professor, and another, a prominent member of the force, who would dissent from this. They both stated to me that they considered Harris’s case far too flimsy to convict Shcar-d upon. And there were others. Hence if my ideas of proof were as loose as Mr Pethcrbridge’s I should say the spectators were unanimous on the question of Shesrd’s innocence. Bub this is.mcrely a jumping at conclusions, not nearly so bad as ah .actual mis-statement of fact such as the -one Mr Petherbridgo makes in connection with the Judge. “ The Judge endorsed the verdict,” this is absolutely untrue. The Judge cxprosse.il no opinion one way or tha other in the case where Bhcard was found guilty, but in the case in which he was acquitted, the Judgo said be considered that the verdict was right, and that the reasons given for it were right. Now, talc? one of Mr Pctherbridgo’a statements of fact, that Sheard “happened to be about the scene on four different occasions.” [r, regard to two cca-sious Sheard has riot wen tried. In future will Mr Pelherbridgo Mease remember that in law a man is innocent until hp has been tried and found tuilty? In regard to the third occasion Sheard has been acquitted. Mr Petheriridge, in his judicial'impartiality, not only fonyicts a man before h® is even tried, but a® also convicts him even if the judge and jury acquit him. “Behold a greater than Solomon is hers

Again Mr Petherbridge asksi “Docs JVliss Rout know that seven persons swpro to Sheard positively in tha lower Court?” find, “ Does uho know that four of these witnesses picked Sheard out of a large concourse of people?” Miss Rout knows neither of tkeso things, nor does anybody else. One of these seven witnesses in Healey’s case is tho lad’s father, who had tha offender in his arms for nearly twenty minutes, and vet would not swear positively to his identity. Or, perhaps, the man Mr Petherbridge refers to is the youth who “ Never misses a Gup or Derby or race pieeting o| any kind,” who had the same opportunity of identifying Sheard as Mr Healey senior, but a much ’ less strong inotivo for so doing. He is sure of Sheard’s Identity, Mr Healey is not. And thou ono >1 the seven was a -lady, Mr? Petherbridge, who saw tho boy casually once, and nearlj' fix months after immediately identified him. 'As counsel remarked, “ She would indeed jnako an admirable addition to tho detectivo Wee.” Two more of tho seven came up the Supreme Court, and they succeeded In making tha jury so doubtful of the identity of the offender with Sheard that *hey acquitted him. Yet two more were tot given tho opportunity c -i doing this. And then there was one. This was the pay called Harris. Hence my statement Vhat Leonard Sheard, proclaiming himself innocent, was convicted out of the mouth M ono witness, a lad of ten or twelve years Pf age, is absolutely correct. I have not, however, done with the case >f Mr Petherhridge’a own boy. This hoy .Was assaulted. A few minutes afterwards his father and mother, riding bicycles, passed a lad walking within a few hundred yards of tha scene. They knew at that time absolutely nothing of the occurrence, and had no special reason to notice the passer-by. Yet sis months afterwards Mrs Petherbridge, who never forgets ai face, swears to his identity. Mr Petherbridge is pot blessed with similar perceptive powers. Ho does forget a face evidently, or he would have been called as a witness. He was pot called.

Mr Petherbridge told his son, before tho latter set out for town, that he would see the person who assaulted him there. -Tho ton did not sea Sheard among a crowd at Court. He and some Fendalton witnesses, (dl together, in a trap, A. Petherbridge being ona, saw Sheard walking a bicycle across the bridge. A. Petherbridge did not identify Sheard as the person he saw on. tha day of the alleged assault, five months before. If Oro did, why was not A. Pctherbridgo a witness? Is -ha not a singularly gallant husband if ba allow* (bis wife to ba dragged into the Court to give evidence in a case of this description if ho could just as well Jymself have identified tho lad? Why did ho not save her all this unpleasantness? JThe inference ia he could not.

But fetf-me deaiia a general one

moment with the question of identification. All tho Fendalton -witnesses live in the same locality, and have been) talking the matter over among themselves. They came to Court together, and went away together. They all know they were coming to tbs Court to see £srcard, as he had already been arrested in Harris’s case. Naturally they saw what they came forth to sc©. ■ Again, A. Potherbridge’s boy mvoro he was assaulted in August. Then said it was a Sunday in September, but did not know the date, and did not know that the detective fixed the date for him. Now, to show how easy it is to bo mistaken in questions of identity, let me quote one case-. Three girls, all as intelligent as Harris, recently identified' a certain man an being in tho Park at a certain time. The man was absolutely proved to be on Bank’s Peninsula at the time named. More recently, take the case of Mr Slack. Again mistaken identification. 'Again, Mr Pctherbridgo says I stand almost alone in my belief in Sheard’s innocence. I do not. I could name a dozen persons; one has named herself in Saturday’s paper, Miss Annie Hookbam. Mr Petherbri'dge does not actually know of tho existence of this large concourse of people, hence he gays it is non-existent, Q.E.D. But they were not there (neither was Mr Pctherbridgo, by the way) at the time of the offence. No, but then we know Leonard Sheard. and hence think it a thousand times more likely that Harris should be mistaken than that Sheard should be guilty. This is only evidence of character, hut evidence of character is not .thin air. Our whole social fabric is. based on this fact: that we can .and do trust each other when we know each other to bo trustworthy. There may ba some points in regard to which one man can never know ■ another. The present is not one of these. Nastiness of mind, vicious habits, filthy actions, and filthy conversation cannot fail to make tbomselves known by the taint they impart to the life, to the whole moral tone of the person concerned ; cannot fail to make every pureminded man and woman shrink instinctively from contact with such an ono. If not one of the many persons who know Leonard Sheard has this feeling how can it bo said that our trust is misplaced? How can it bo said that we are all wrong and have all been wrong for years, and that a little boy called Harris is the only one who is right? No, I repeat, Sheard's conviction did not result from' the evidence one half so much as it resulted from tho reading out of fourspecific charges against him, on only one of which he has been found guilty, and that through mistaken identity. In conclusion, I must not be understood to be casting doubt on the commission of tho offences. Most, people in tho neighbourhood of Fendalton and Riccarton have known of them for months past—policemen and infants excepted. But the whole point ivs have to consider is ono of identification. IVho did it? In the light of the present facts, as well as in the light of my knowledge of his character, I say emphatically, not Leonard Sheard. I sincerely apologise for the length of this letter. Could I have shortened it without sacrificing clearness and precision, I would have done so ; but inasmuch as it is written wholly in the interests of tnjth and justice, I know I can thank you, in anticipation for its insertion in full.—l am, etc., ETTIE A, ROUT. Christchurch, May 26, ISO 3. (We have allowed a; good deal of latitude in tho discussion of this case, but now that Miss Bout, has rc-stated the defence tha correspondence must cento, unless there are some fresh facts to disclose.Ed. “L.T.”) TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Having been -present during Leonard Sheard’s trial at tho Supremo Court, I have read 1 Miss Bout's letter and also , the one in reply by (Mr Potherbridge with great interest. Miss limit firmly believes in Sheard’s innocence, while Mr Petbcrbridge just os firmly believes him guilty. Miss Rout, as a friend of Sheard, and Mr Petherbridge, as father, of ono of tho boys assaulted, are quite naturally biassed* but I think Mr Pctherbridgo is unfair in his criticism of Miss Rout’s letter, and he is certainly wrong in saying that the spectators--,were unanimous in believing Sheard guilty. The three things which told against Sheard were: Hirst, that he was near tho spot about the time Harris was assaulted; second, that he was identified by Harris; and third, that (hero were three other charges of a similar nature against him. Now, Sheard's account of how he came to be there at that time was quite reasonable and his statements were not disproved in ?, single particular, and surely it is no evidence of a person’s guilt that ho takes the longer* of two roads to reach a certain point. Then, Harris said that his assailant was wearing brown clothes, while it was proved, clearly that Sheard wore navy blue. Of tho other charges,-tho jury acquitted him of one and tho other two were withdrawn, I, tacly beliais that ihadl the.

charges been taken in an inverse order Sheard would have been acquitted. Surely if tho Judge had felt sure the accused was guilty the. sentence would have been much more severs. Two or three years instead of six months would hare been more fitting for a person addicted to such abominable offences.—l am, etc., ONE PRESENT AT THE TRIAL, TO TUB BDITOH. Sir, —The parental regard that prompts Mr Pethcvbridge’a -letter would, if bis own son .should be placed in lira unfortunate position that young Sheard is now in, also impel Mr Pethcrbiidgetobe f>till more strenuous in agitating for further judicial inquiry. So far front flic, verdict being unanimously endorsed, I am credibly informed, 1 that ib caused astonishment to many disinterested people present. Amongst those who expressed an- emphatic dissent was ono of the most responsible and trusted of tho officials connected with the administration of our criminal law. The alternative fo endorsing the verdict offered by Mr I‘ctlierbridgc, so far from being logical, is manifestly ulmud, the ultimate decision being with a dozen men, none of whom were, probably, any batter qualified to weigh, evidence than is your correspondent, and yet might in their various callings exercise more than ordinary intelligence. This particular case emphasises an opinion I hold in common with many who have 'better opportunities cf observation than I have, viz., that it- is a meet- poijjt whether the ends of justice would nut be better attained without the intervention of laymen. None of us who have arrived at mature age bat we can recall instances when life and liberty have been legally sacrificed through a. combination of circumstances in wdrich facts have subsequently conic to light establishing the innocence of tho victims. For those who are persuaded' that this in such an exceptional case, it therefore becomes a duty to insist upon further investigation l , and- I trust that thev will be persistent ini their efforts.—l nmj etc., ' - A. P. TALBOT.