A FREE PARDON

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LVI, 14 October 1922, Page 8

A FREE PARDON

AN INNOCEN'F # MAN’S IiEI'EIEVK The fad that. circumstantial evidence ;tiay seem so overwhelming ns to cause an entirely innocent .man to bow to adverse fate and to plead guilty to a ■.rime which lie never committed, lias just been illustrated in Victoria in a striking manner (says the Melbourne

A lew ilays ago, -Mr Lewis, secretary to tlie Law Department, stated that Sir William Irvine, in his capacity a.' Lieutenant-Governor, had approved oi a tree pardon being granted to I! ■ r Stammers, blaeksmilli and relumed sol dier, who had pleaded guilty and beer si ntenced for a crime which, it had heel moved, lie had no hand in. The story is as followsSlammer* was a blacksmith working for Mr Ho hurt W. Anthony, coach-builder, ol hygon Street, East Brunswick. .Anthony one day missed £ll from Ids pocket. Stammers, who was deputed tc •k: somewhat hard up. was suspected, tie denied the theft. In duo course lit was haled before lirunswick court, o • idly sessions, where he was confronted \ ith strong circumstantial evidence, igainsi which lie could place only lib iUii lichlc denial. .Nevertheless, as was lalural, lie pleaded not guilty. linn fate played a strung trick upon ■hammers. Silling in the court was a n.niiiy solicitor who. having heard tin wight of evidence against Stammers. uJvised him to jilead guilty. It was an embarrassing position foi die unfortunate man. Jlcre was a man if the law, who having heard (he evidence, gave him the friendly advice d.at the lies! way out was to plead guilty. Vet he was innocent. If lie pleaned guilty the Brunswick court would have power to deal with him .ummarily. if he pleaded not guilty lie. would in all probability he comrnit.cil for trial at the next criminal sil- ■ ings of the Supreme Court of Victoria, with all the expense and publicity and anxiety of waiting attached to such a course. And maybe, he would then he found guilty. (Stammer, it was apparent, weighed the chances and made Jiis decision. Tho completely innocent, man altered his pica and pleaded guilty to a crime lie know nothing whatever about. Tho Court was merciful. It sentenced him to six months' imprisonment, but suspended the sentence on Stammers entering into u bond for £6O to be of good behaviour. That was on May 24. Then Stammers, with the mark of a criminal, conviction against him, left the Court. And there, but for the restlessness of a friend, the matter might have vested, and Stammers would have passed through life, with “a record” ready to be launched against him should he, by any chance, happen in the future to get into more trouble. The restless friend, however, would not let the matter end. Convinced ol Stammers innocence and that the young man had been gravely wronged, he took the matter to Mr A. Robinson, Attor-ney-General. The -Attorney-General was impressed. A thorough investigation was ordered. The police, who, to give them due, credit, cun be as earnest in establishing innocence as in establishing guilt, sheeted home the crime to a female employed in Anthony’s household. Mr Anthony himself made a statement, in which he said, “I am perfectly satisfied that Bert Stammers is innocent of the charge of stealing my £11.” There was but one step left open to the Crown in the circumstances. The Attorney-General recorded that he was satisfied that Stammers was wrongly convicted, and that he recommended that he should he granted a free pardon in respect of the conviction. The Lieutenant-Governor approved, and thus, nearly six months after the recording oT the conviction and sentence, the world of Stammers’ fellowmen are called to - witness the extraordinary fact that the Crown itself adjudges him to be nob guilty of the crime to which lie pleaded guilty.