BLOODSTAINED BOOTS AND TROUSERS DO NOT FIT CAFFERY’S MATE

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 7060, 7 November 1929, Page 6

BLOODSTAINED BOOTS AND TROUSERS DO NOT FIT CAFFERY’S MATE

Leavy Murder Trial

BYRNE’E DENIAL OP KNOWLEDGE OP CRIME GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER

Per Press Association.

AUCKLAND, Last Night,

The trial of Greorge Caffery on a charge of murder was continued in the Supremo Court to-day. Patrick Byrne stated in evidence that he was in Oaffery’s house on thS night of the murder and never went out after 6 o’clock. He did not know Leavy was murdered until the police came for him. He denied that a pair of bloodstained boots and trousers similarly marked belonged to him.

At Mr Meredith’s request, Byrne tried on the boots and trousers and the trousers would not button round his waist. Byrne said the boots were a mile too big.

On being cross-examined, witness admitted he had been drinking heavily but denied that at about 6.30 p.m. he and Caff cry left the latter’s house to go in search of Cole at 110 Nelson street. Ho persisted in saying that he and oaffory came home together that evening. He denied that he carried a knife and he had no knives at Caffery’s that night. He denied he wore dark trousers on the day of the murder and that he changed his shirt that evening. He persisted in denying he was outside Oaffery's house on the night of the murder till counsel remarked: ‘ I suppose you deny all knowledge of the affair?”

“Absolutely,” said witness. This closed the case for the Crown. In giving evidence for tho defence Mrs Oaffery, wife of accused, said accused and Byrne went out of the house at about 0.40 p.m. She identified the bloodstained dark trousers and brown boots, produced, as having belonged to Byrne. She denied having seen in her house the sheath knife. Byrne changed his shirt and next day she found the brown boots in the washhouse and she took them to the detective office. Later, she found the. stained trousers. “Byrne brought a knife to the house and it was as sharp as a razor,” said witness. “I used it for cutting broad but it was missing at the time of the tragedy.” Witness saw Byrne later and reference was made to accused’s arrest. Byrne said: “I kept my mouth shut and if George had done the same, he would not be where he is to-day.” William John Lynch, timber worker, gave evidence that on the evening of August 2, Byrne was, wearing a blue overcoat and blue pants. Witness was quite positive about that. He had remarked to his sister: “Byrne was looking quite flash to-night. He had a bluo overcoat and blue pants on.” Mr Dickson, for the defence, said the evidence about the knife was most unsatisfactory. Was it believable that six trained detectives could have failed to And it in a small, poorly furnished room? It was very doubtful if the knife had been there at all. Byrne did not get the name of “wild for nothing. If Oaffiery owned bo® pairs of boots exhibited, could it be supposed that he wore two pairs of boots and got them both bloodstained that evening? If the Crown came along and said now for the first time that Caffe ry had aided and abetted the commission of the crime, then the Orowri threw over its whole case. The Crown was, now, in effect, putting Byrne in the box alongside Oaffery and saying: “Byrne, you did the crime and Oaffery you aided and abetted him. ’ ’ That meant that Caffery did not actually commit the murder and the whole Crown case collapsed like a pack of cards. Mr; Meredith, Crown prosecutor, said: “One thing dear is that the unfortunate man Leavy was foully done to death by a stab in the groin. Of that fact there can be no doubt. The point for tho jury to consider is whether Caffery was responsible for that death or not. ’'

Mr Meredith invited the jury to-con-sider whether there was any other than Caffery at the doer when, the stabbing took place. If it concluded that Caffery was alone, then it was perfectly clear that the direct cause of Leavy’s death was scabbing by Caffery. Mr Justice Smith summed up tonight. He said a householder named Leavy was stabbed to death while preventing an intruder from entering his premises. That was the essence of the cose. It had not been shown that either accused or Byrne, who had boon brought into the case, had any enmity against Leavy. Ho did not know whether it was just to Leavy to say he belonged to the underworld. There was no evidence on that point. At any rate, he was a householder. If the jury concluded that Oaffery was alone at the door of the house, it would have little difficulty in concluding there had been unlawful killing. If Byrne was also there, the Crown still submitted Oaffery did the stabbing. Even if two persons were there, it was for the jury to say whether Caffery did the stabbing or not. The second phase of the caso which had been- developed by the defence was that the stabbing had been done by Byrnei • To establish the guilt of accused in that case, the jury must come to the conclusion that there was some common purpose between Caffery and Byrne to assist each other in entering the premises by violence at any cost. The crime of murder might be reduced to manslaughter if the jury considered that accused had received suc-h provocation as to cause a reasonable man to use a deadly weapon in self-defence. The case was fairly barren of evidence, however, to show that Leavy gave provocation when the lethal weapon was used. The provocation must be very great. The jury retired at 5.30 p.xn. and after a retirement of a little longer than two hours, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of manslaughter, with a strong recommendation to mercy, be-