The Picton Murder

Manawatu Times, Volume LVI, Issue 7071, 2 February 1933, Page 7

The Picton Murder

Condemned Man’s Appeal

COUNSEL PLEADS INSUFFICIENCY OF FACTS FOR CONVICTION

Per Press Association

WELLINGTON, Feb. 1

Tho appeal of Edvrard Tarrant, of Pieton, from his conviction for the murder of James Flood at Pieton on or about November 3rd, 1931, and the subsequent sentence of death passed upon him by Mr Justice Blair, commenced before the Court of Appeal this morning. The Court consists of Sir Michael Myers (Chief Justice) and Justices MacGregor and Ostler. Mr Evan Parry (Wellington) and Mr Seantlebury (Blenheim) are appearing for tho prisoner, and Mr A. Fair, E.C., Solicitor-General, and Mr P. S. K. Macassey for the Crown. In opening the case for the prisoner, Mr Parry contended that there had been no evidence at all adduced by the Crown on which the jury were entitled to lind the accused guilty. Mr Parry made the following submissions: (1) The Crown had failed to prove tho facts on which the jury were asked to rely. (2) In cases where the Crown had proved particular facts on w-liich it relied, thoso facts were remote from the real mater in issue and were capable of explanation upon the hypothesis of innocence. (3) In many instances the best evidence that the circumstances permitted was not produced by the Crown. (4) The accumulative effect of the facts proved and alleged to constitute the case against the accused was consistent with and explainable upon a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Tho second main point in tho Crown’s case, Mr. Parry continued, was that accused became suddenly possessed of money subsequent to November 3. There was evidence that Tarrant paid somo debts which he owed between November 4 and 9. Whether these payments by Tarrant were matter from which the jury could draw any inference had to depend upon whether there was any evidence to show that such a payment ivas unique and unusual by Tarrant. There was no such evidence. Apart from this Tarrant explained where he got the money to pay the accounts. What was more he explained it before he was in any way questioned by the police. He informed them he had borrowed £3O from Flood about a week before Flood’s death and it had been established independently that on November 4, he received £l9 19s 3d from a Blenheim firm. These two amounts together more than covered the total amount of the payments. Counsel submitted that there was nothing to show that accused’s account of where ho received the money was not true. He contended that tho jury was not entitled to reject the explanation given by accused in the absence of evidenco to the contrary. Tho confusion in Tarrant’s statement as to when Flood lent him the money, was capablo of explanation as both dates mentioned by him were non-working days and on both occasions he was working in his garden. It was alleged by the police that tho injuries to deceased had been caused by an axo weilded in a left-handed and expert manner. Tarrant admittedly was an expert with tho axe and used it in a left-handed manner, but the condition of tho skull was consistent with a right-handed blow or a straight down blow. Medical evidenco called by the Crown admitted that. The court adjourned.