LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 8353, 5 September 1890, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—Criminal Sittings.

Thursday. [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Conolly.] THE GISBORNE MURDER CASE.

William Black was again before the Court on the charge of wilfully murdering Robert Streeter, near Gisborne. The whole of the evidence had been concluded on the previous night. Before opening hie address bo the jury, Mr. Williamson asked whether he would be permitted to refer to the date on which the case had been heard at the lower Court. The dates had not been mentioned by a'ny of the witnesses, although they were mentioned in the depositions. The dates were the 22nd, 23rd, and 24th of July. Mr. Reee said he had no objection, and the permission aeked for was granted. Mr. Williamson then addressed the jury on the whole case. He pointed out that the evidence was entirely circumstantial, consisting of isolated acts on behalf of the accused, and of isolated facts, which pointed to the accused as the person who had committed this crime. He said a doubt had been introduced, and would no doubt bo urged on them that Streeter was murdered by some person or persons other than the accused. That Streeter had been foully murdered there was no doubt, and there was no doubt as to the body found being that of Streeter. He first addressed himself to the point as to whether the deceased might have been killed by Maoris, and he referred to the evidence on this point, to the fact that some Maoris had been out shooting on the 30th of March, and the finding of pebbles in the wound, and pointed out that the evidence as to any quarrel between the natives and Streeter in regard to the shooting of dogs two years ago was of the moat meagre character, and there was no suggestion that the murder was for the purpose of robbery. He showed that it was possible for the pebbles to have got into the brain in some other way than by being fired out of a gun, as, for instance, that they might have gob in when the body was hauled leg foremost out of tho hole in which it was found. Ho then proceeded to refer to tho evidence in general, and the contradictory nature of the statements made by tho accusod. He urged that although like a faggot each item of itself was weak, yet when tied together it offered a great deal of resistance, and he s. id that tho chain of evidence undoubtedly and conclusively pointed to the accused as the man who had committed the murder. Asa reason for tho crime, he referred to the intimacy which existed between Black and Mrs. Streeter, and which was shown i by the purchase of the ring for Mrs. Streeter by tho accused, and of the finding of Mrs. Streeter's photograph in Black's camp. Mr. Williamson slosed his address ut fivo minutes to twelve o'clock.

Mr. Roes then addressed the jury, and in opening said that he had to compliment the Crown Prosecutor on tho temperate nature of his address ; but they must recollecb that, however temperate he was in drawing their attention to the evidence against tho prisoner, he was prosecuting, and that when ho (Mr. Kecs) spoke he was for the defence: so that no matter how much either of them desired to bo impartial, they could not bo wholly so, and it was in the hands of His Honor only that the strict scales of impartiality lay. He denied that the Maori theory was sprung on tho prosecution. The police had ample knowledge, but the sergeant was convinced that Black was tjuilty, and did not inquire further ; but it was tho duty of the police to have inquired into the Maoris' theory. Mr. Reos then proceeded to deal with the evidence. This disappearance of Streeter was the subject of general discussion in the district, and every place he went to the accused was pestered with inquiries about him. This no doubt accounted for tho discrepancies in some of his statements, for he, like others, was constantly hearing rumours of all kinds, but tho main answers which he made were consistent. Ah a theory of accounting for tho blood on the battens he propounded that the deceased must have been struck down by ono of the battens, then shot, and carried on some of the battens to the hole in which tho body was found, and that they were buried to hide tho marks of blood. Ho alao pointed out, that although the hole from which tha body was takou wae< clay, there was no clayey matter in the wound, arid there was no doubt the pebbles found in the deceased's brain wero portions of the charge discharged from the gun. Hβ also pointed out the impossibility of accused naming time to dig the hole and bury tho body in time available on tho 30th. He contended thab it was highly improbable that the accused could havo committed tho crime. He classified tho evidence. He would ask them to tako the evidence of Mr. Armstrong, tho surveyor, Mr. Foster, Constable Redell, the doctor, and Mr. Good to bo taken as absolutely correct, but with regard to the evidence of Alloa, McDonald, Parsons, Parkinson, anil Mrs. Price, he would ask the jury to dismiss them from their minds, excopt so far as they might be corroborated on certain points. He then proceeded to dissect tho evidence of the latter class of witnesses. He then dealt with Alloa's evidence, pointing out not only the animus, but the contradictions in his statements. He referred to the unreliable character of McDonald's evidence, who only mentioned the fact of Maoris having passed by the track when he was in Gisborne. Then there was his change of name, and he, Mr. Rees, submitted McDonald was unworthy of belief on three grounds, his ciiauge of name, his neglect to mention the fact of Maoris having passed that day, and his statement hero that he had forgotten to mention it in the lower Court. He also commented on Parsons' evidence and on that of Mrs. Price, and submitted thab the evidence of those witnesses should only be received where they were corroborated, or had the absolute semblance of truth. He then referred to the evidence of Parkinson and Waring, pointing out discrepancies in their statements. He also referred to tho other evidence, that of Sergeant Carlylo and the constables, and continuing, said lie did not think it was a case of deliberate murder on the part of the Maoris, but that a quarrel arose, and after Streetor had been disabled ho was shot and buried, as they feared the consequences. He concluded by impressing on the jury the solemnity of tho duty cast on them, and quoted tho law as to what weight should begiven to circumstantial evidence. It must not only bo a rational conclusion, but the only rational conclusion. He impressed on the jury that they had the responsibility of life and death. If they wero convinced that accused alone committed the crime they must convict, but if not convinced of that the responsibility on tho jury would bo fearful. They stood between the Crown and the prisoner ; and if they held that tho Crown had proved their case they must find prisoner guilty, but if there was any other hypothesis they must give it weight. He left the case in their hands with the fullest confidence.

His Honor at. three o'clock addressed the jury. He said the counsel had by no means exaggerated the responsibilities of the jury. He had permitted the counsel for the defunco to address them as to tho value of circumstantial evidence, with which he might not quite agree. In this case the ground was cleared away by the admission that Streeter was murdered, and then they had to find out whether the prisoner at the bar committed the murder. The whole of the evidence was circumstantial, aud he agreed with counsel that to find him guilty, the guilt of the prisoner must be inconsistent with any other theory which could be sot up. A very ingenious one was set up by the counsel for the defence, that Streeter had an altercation with Maoris, but there was no evidence to support it, and the hypothesis was more unreasonable than thab of the Crown. But they should nob set ib aside on that ground. There might be other causes, but what they had to find was, did the prisoner commib bhe crime. In murder cases it was rarely the case that there was direct testimony, but in circumstantial evidence it was necessary that it should clearly point to the person accused. He reminded the jury that they must be guided by the evidence, reserving to themselves the right to believe or discard any evidence as unreliable. His Honor then placed the case for the Crown before the jury. It was this, that accused and Streeter had gone inbo the bush together, and Sbreeter never returned, and accused made differenb sbatemenbs regarding his disappearance. But there was no evidence whatever as to what happened to the man until three months afterwards, when he was found buried in the bush. The accusation against bhe prisoner rested on opportunity, motive, and the inconeisteiib statetnente be bad made. Aβ

to the motive he should have more to say after, for he believed the improper relationship between Mrs. Streeter and the prisoner was of longer duration than she admitted. He thoughb the question of the payment of money by accused to Streeter was of little importance except that it was not found when the body was found. His Honor then commented on the statements made by the prisoner. His Honor said the arrest of the man before there was any proof that a murder had been committed was most extraordinary, and showed that the police had made up their minds that a murder had been committed. That was also evidently in the minds of some of the witnesses, but it was now beyond doubt that a murder had been committed, and it was for the jury to decide whether the prisoner had committed it. His Honor then proceeded to deal with the evidence, commenting as he went on on the salient points and bearings of the testimony. He aid not think Alloa's evidence wa3 of much value, even if they believed the whole of it; but to his mind it was most unreasonable, and should not weigh with the jury at all, and the witness probably had some animus against Black. His Honor then proceeded to deal with the evidence of Parkinson, Waring, Ralph McDonald, Joseph Hart, and the other witnesses, reading and commenting on the evidence of each witness, more especially on the evidence of the witnesses whose veracity was challenged by counsel for the defence. He concluded by commenting on Dr. Lines' evidence, the finding of the lead pellets and pebbles in the brain, and the total absence of earthy matter in the wound, and said that there c*>uld be very little doubt that the charge which killed Streeter was composed of shot and pebbles mixed. He pointed out that the contention of the defence was that that was almost conclusive proof that this shot was not fired by Europeans, and it was shown that Maoris were in the habit when shot was scarce to mix it with pebbles, and it was relied on as strong evidence for the defence that the murder was committed by a Maori or Maoris, although no Maori was traced to the spot. Ib. was also contended fchat the manner of burial was more that of natives than Europeans. On that he could nob direct the jury, nor was he able to form an opinion to to whether cutting down boughs to form a screen was more likely to suggest itself to a native than to a European mind. They would anxiously consider their verdict. There was, as he pointed out, opportunity; there was to some extent motive, and there were the contradictory statements of the prisoner. On the other hand there was no evidence of any ill-feeling between Black and Streeter as to the motive which would actuate Blaok to the crime. They had no evidence that Streoter was aware of the relations between Black and his wife, and probably if he did know it would not have affected him much. Then again, prisoner had a generally good reputation in the district, and if a man of a quiet disposition, he was the less likely to commit such a crime. He was quite sure they would not arrive at a hasty conclusion, more especially if the conclusion was hostile to the prisoner, but would give him the benefit of every reasonable doubt. If they thought there was no other hypothesis for the death of Streeter than that it was caused by prisoner they would bring in a verdict of guilty, but if they had any reasonable doubt they would give him the benefit of that doubt, and acquit him. His Honor concluded his address at halfpast five o'clock, and the jury then retired to consider their verdict.

The prisoner throughout the day had listened to the speeches of counsel and the summing up of the learned Judge with intense and strained interest. Just as the jury retired he was noticed to be breathing heavily and convulsively. Ho was given a glass of water, which momentarily revived him, but he almost immediately tumbled off his seat to the floor of the dock, and struggled in a violent fib for some time. He was brought out of this fit after a time, but ho immediately fell off into a deep swoon, and had to be carried by warders into the Court yard. At twenty minutes to seven o'clock the jury returned to Court, and the prisoner in a very limp state was supported into the dock and hold in a standing position by two warders.

In answer to the challenge of the registrar the foreman of the jury returned a verdict of "Nob guilty," and His Honor directed the prisoner's discharge. He was helped out by the warders in a semi-conscious state.

His Honor thanked the jury for the great care and attention they had devoted to this prolonged case during the last three days. He quite concurred in their verdict, for it was a case of great suspicion and doubt, and they wei'f right to give the prisoner the bonefit of every doubt. In consequence of their long , attendance of three days on this case, he would take upon himself to discharge them from further attendance. The Court then adjourned till 10 o'clock next morning.

R.M. COURT.—Thursday. [Before Dr. Giles. R.M.] Undefended Cases.—ln the following undefended cases judgment was given for the plaintiffs :—R. F. Roth v. Thos. H. Hoy, £5 (is, costs 11s ; Thos. Foley v. Chas. Little, £S, costs 26s ; Chas. Harvey v. Sydney W. I'ean, £2 13s (id, costs 17a Cd ; F. J. Bennett and Samuel Short v. Hector N. Simson, £5 6s, costs 11s ; \V. R. Cook v. John Kerr, £1 4s, costs 6s ; John Young v. F. Lockly, £1 14s, costs Gs ; Adam Miliar and Robt. Hardy v. R. McKelvie, £4 10s, costs lGs 6d; W. H. Haslott v. Henry B. Smith, £1 10s, costs 6s. George Ronn'e v. Union Steamship Company.—Claim, £28 16s 6d. Mr. Cotter appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Campbell for the defendant. Judgment was given for the defendant. Costs, £3 3s. Gideon Smales v. Andrew Austin.— Claim, £14 Is 9d. Mr. McCormick appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Brookfield for the defendant. Judgment was given for the defendant. Costs, 2ls. James Dunning v. Patrick O'Meaghkr and \V. Adams.—Claim, £6 7s 3d. Mr. Theo. Cooper appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. George for the defendant Patrick O'Meagher. Judgment was given for the plaintiff. Costs, £2.

POLICE COURT.— Thursday. [Before Mr. .T. Gordon ami Sir William Fox, J.P.'s.) Drunkenness.—One man, a first offender, was fined 5s and costs, or in default 24 hours' hard labour. Ironmongery Thefts.—Benjamin Davis and Mary Ann Davis, his wife, were charged with the theft of ironmongery of various descriptions valued at £20, the property of T. and S. Morrin and Co., on or about the 25th August last. Benjamin Davis was further charged with having stolen ironmongery to the value of £100, from the same firm on or about the 20th August. Mr. Dignan appeared on behalf of Mrs. Davis. Inspector Broham asked for a remand of eight clear days. Mr. Dignan said that he must object to the remand, as Mrs. Davis was prepared to answer to her charge, and if the police had any proof against her they should produce it now. It was not right to prolong the case by continual remands Inspector Broham replied that it was impossible to go on with the one case without the other. He pointed out how the amount o.f stolen property found by the police had grown from less than £100 until it now amounted to some £400 or £500, and by the time the case came on, again it would, in all probability, reach a much larger amount. It would be absurd to go on with a case of this kind until everything was fully prepared. The remand for eight days was granted. With regard to the question of bail, the Inspector said that he had, under the circumstances, strongly objected to such being allowed, but that his objection had been overruled, and the bail fixed upon was ridiculously small for a case of this kind. Mr. Dignan, however, pointed out that he was appearing for Mrs. Davis only, and that there was only one charge against her. The Inspector said that he had no objection to bail being allowed for Mrs. Davis, and the Bench fixed it at £50 on her own security, and two sureties of £50 each.