CHARGE OF MURDER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11714, 25 July 1901, Page 6

CHARGE OF MURDER.

SEQUEL TO THE GRAND HOTEL FIRE. JESSICA MINNS BEFORE THE POLICE COURT. ADMISSIBILITY OF DEPOSITIONS .: DISCUSSED. I The roadway, leading from the police cells I in High-street to the Police Court was lined with spectators anxious to catch a- glimpse of the now notorious Hiss Jessica Newbegan Minns, who made startling statements before the Coroner's Court recently as to the origin of the Grand Hotel fire, and was, after two remands, brought before Mr. T. Hutchison, S.M., yesterday, to answer to the charge of murdering Leonore Johnston and others, victims at the fire. " As the accused, escorted by the police, emerged from the doorway leading from the cells and made her way across the roadway all eyes were turned on her, and the eager crowd followed in her wake, but nothing appeared to disturb her. She seemed oblivious of the fact that she was the centre of observation. The space set apart for the public in the Court was also crowded to excess, the onlookers, including many females, and many stood outside in the passageways. There they waited patiently from half-past ten till five minutes to twelve, when Miss Minna was ushered into the dock. As at the inquest, she sat holding her head down, looking neither, to the right nor to the left. The Hon."J. A. Tole, Crown Solicitor, conducted the case for the Crown, and Mr. J. C. Martin appeared for the accused. THE CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION. In opening the case for the prosecution Mr. Tole said that on the morning of Friday, May 31 last, a fire broke out in the Grand Hotel. Not only did it destroy the building, but resulted in the death of live persons. ..At the time the cause of the fire seemed wrapped in mystery,' the usual inquiry was ■ opened "before the coroner, and a lengthy and exhaustive investigation was'.. proceeded with. During the ■ course of that investigation the accused, who up to the time of the fire had been pantrymaid at the hotel, was summoned as a witness. . This was : on the 28th day of June, a considerable time after the opening of the inquiry. She had thus had ample time to collect her thoughts and consider what evidence she was going to give, but when first called had declined to give evidence at all. She was consequently taken into custody, and after a night's confinement in the cells _ she was next day sworn and made a statement. On oath she had given a detailed story and graphic description of certain men she had met » and who had accosted her both on the night before the fire and on the evening of the night the fire .actually occurred. These men had, in her presence, expressed their intention to destroy the building; in fact, to blow the whole place sky-high,- and had according to her own statement bound her over to secrecy by holding out the threat that they would kill her if she disclosed their intentions. ; . On June 10, eighteen days before accused was summoned before the Coroner's ' Court, she had told the Johnstons that she had seen certain men about the hotel the night before, and on the night of the • fire, and that they had threatened to take her life if she made the disclosure referred to. Then -in further evidence as to the fire the accused had said it was not due to accident, as she had seen the men*, mentioned, rubbing white stuff on the walls and carpets They had a fuse and gunpowder, and she had carried a parcel downstairs for one of the,men. It was a strange circumstance that where all these preparations were made the fire had apparently started, that the back gate should have been open, and that the light in the pantry. usually allowed to burn at night, should have been out on the night of the fire. The accused had also referred to the voices that had been heard on the premises, thus corroborating the statement of Madame Wauters, the late cook, with regard to the : noises, and the call for keys. Up to this point the woman, on her, own confession, was an accomplice,, a party to the crime of murder, and equally liable to the penalties of the law as the others concerned. Called again on June 30 the accused had said that she had read the whole story in a book.. His Worship: Are you going to put in the girl's depositions Mr. Tole: I proposed to do so, Your Worship. ' ; xur. Martin: I do not wish to interrupt my friend, but shall have something to say on that point later on. Mr. Tole, continuing, said it would have to be remembered that the mother of the accused .' had stated that the girl was in possession of her full faculties, and then went on to draw attention to the possibilities . that the case presented. Was it not possible (he asked) that the girl had done the deed herself, and had then committed perjury? She had said in her concluding statement before the Coroner's Court that she had read it in a book, but in view of the various statements and contradictions and the air of truth that was lent to the original statement by the corroborative evidence given by the witness,' Madame Wauters, with regard to the presence of men about the hotel on the night of the fire, he thought the case was one that should certainly go before a jury for consideration. :,, WITNESSES FOR THE PROSECUTION. Henry Jones; late night porter at the Grand Hotel, was then placed in the box as the first witness ; for the prosecution. After giving particulars of the five persons— the three Johnston children, Miss Dora Wallace, and Mr. Fred —whose lives were lost • through the fire, he detailed his own : movements on the night of the fire, particulars of which have already been published in our columns. Witness did not remember having had ins his collection any book answering" to the description given by the accused and entitled. " Fred, the Miner," or "Alfred, the Miner." - ■ ' ' i Cross-examined by Mr. Martin: Witness said :' he did not see any- strange persons about the hotel on the night of the fire, nor on the night preceding it, nor did he hear any unusual noises on the night of the fire." .. ■ To Mr. Tole : If any strangers had entered the hotel on the night of the fire it must have been before he went on duty, ] say, about half-past ten p.m. There might i have been strange persons in the pantry ' without his being aware of their presence there. «* - T Alexander Johnston, licensee of . the l Grand Hotel, was next called. : In the t course of his ~ statement witness expressed c the opinion that the building must have 8 been wilfully set on fire his reason for be- , lieving that such was the case was because .' of the remarkable rapidity with which the * flames had spread. He had only retired t from half an hour to thirty-five minutes ■> before being aroused by the alarm of fire, -, and, judging by the strong hold the fire i then had, he considered he should have ~ found some traces of fire before-going to • bed, provided the outbreak had been acci- ' dental. Witness repeated the statement that 1 on June 10before the inquiry accused, in \ answer to a question-put to 'her when she called at his residence, had borne out Madame Wauters' statement that there had been a strange men about the place on the night 1 of the fire. i Josephine Wauters, late chief cook at the } Grand Hotel, being called, described the » noises she said she had heard in the dining- * room on the night of the fire, and repeated A her former statement to the effect that she ' I had heard someone calling out for the keys. * I She had seen four men in i the passageway * i near the pantry, one of them being the t ! night porter, Henry Jones. The others v ; were holding their 'heads down, but she l \ thought she recognised one of them as a c former employee of Mr. Johnston's, a man * named Henry Clarke. She bad asked the t ! accused if it was not Henry Clarke, and as 1 the answer had been in the affirmative she < felt pretty sure that it was him. She had « since seen in the papers .md had also heard J that Heury Clarke was not there on the t night of the fire, and would not now be pre- I pared to swear that the man she saw was 1 Clarke. She had thought, it was hiin at I the time, and as her impression had been i confirmed by accused alxu had thought she s was safe in saying it was Clarke when she I gave evidence before the coroner. \ She n would not, now, however, in view of what 1 che had since steu and heard, say that it £ I was him. . . j j James Grover, late head waiter at the I , Grand Hotel, gave evidence as to his move- 1

ments preceding the outbreak on the : night of the' lire, and to the part he played at the fire." ■ John Mulvalhill, a labourer residing in Bank-street, to the rear of the Grand Hotel, said he first' saw the fire at 20 minutes to \ one a.m. on the morning of Slay 31st; the" flames were then spreading in all directions, and the fire had a strong hold, v, He saw one of the windows in the dining-room of he burning building being raised; it was lifted a matter of about 18 inches. ; MRS. MINNS IN THE BOX. - Mary Ann Minns, mother of the accused, said her daughter was 26 years of age last June. She (the accused) was a rational girl and in the possession cf her full senses. Cross-examined by Mr. Martin; Witness said the accused had not been in good health for the. last twelve month's and did not sleep regularly. ;. ' - His Worship: What sort of literature does your daughter read, Mrs. Minns? Witness: The sort of novelettes she had referred to, "Fred, the Miner," and such books. She mostly read children's books when she was at home. THE CORONER CALLED. Thomes Gresham, city coroner, on oath, said he had conducted an inquiry into the circumstances relating to the Grand Ho fire. Thirty-one witnesses were examined, among the number being the accused, who was brought before him an a warrant issued at the request of the police on June 28. She declined to be sworn or to give evidence that day, but gave voluntary evidence next day on oath, and made a further deposition at a later date. The evidence of the second day was voluntary. Mr. Martin at this stage intimated that he. would object to the admission of the depositions of the accused as evidence, and would do so on several grounds, which he would submit to His Worship at a later stage.-. It would be sufficient for the present to submit that it had been conclusively shown that the statement made was forced from accused, and was not made voluntarily, and he would ask His Worship to give a definite ruling on the point before the depositions were admitted. It would rest with his learned friend in order to enforce the admission of the depositions to show that they -were made voluntarily, and he would . meanwhile) ask that His Worship should examine the police officer and other parties concerned, with a view to obtaining the facts of what appeared to be the irregular methods that had been adopted before the statement was made, the outcome of which had been the story placed before the coroner on the second occasion that the accused was examined. \ It had already been clearly ' shown that the girl would not, in the first place, attend the inquiry voluntarily, and : the outcome had been that she was brought lip by the police in custody to the Court. She again objected to be sworn or come forward, and on the coroner's own admission, struggled with the police before she had been taken to the chair. . She once more refused to he sworn, and was handed over to the police, and retained in j custody until the following morning, when she had been sworn, and made the statement upon which the charge hinged. ■ He contended that -these circumstances clearly showed that the girl had been forced to give evidence. ■-"'".-."'■"'■ 7 ;: To the Coroner: Did you threaten the girl? "■:.'- : """.,' ~-.' '■ Witness:: I told her that she would have to be sent to gaol if she refused to be sworn ;.and to give evidence. Did you tell her. that she would be compelled to give evidence sooner or later? ""■'_ Yes. I told her that she would have to be swern and give evidence. , His Worship said the question was whether or not the depositions that had - been extracted in ' such a - manner \ could be admitted as evidence. : Mr. Tole contended that the coroner was quite within his power in issuing a warrant for the apprehension of persons who refused to give evidence, and if he so chose to commit such person for contempt of Court. There was no breach of propriety, on •■; the ■ part of the coroner in compelling a witness to, be sworn, but it would certainly'.be: overstepping his duties if he attempted to force a witness to make a statement in evidence after being sworn. If this had been done ; he would not contend against the admission '. of the depositions;■;■ but as the case stood,* j he certainly held that. the statements by the ! accused had been made voluntarily. His Worship : Mr. Gresham has.said so, but is it borne out by the evidence that the statement was voluntary? Coroners': depositions have been . admitted, but this is a unique case. I would like authority produced to show that depositions had been admitted against a deponent under such circumstances as this. Mr. Martin; contended that only an admission or a confession could be admitted ; but the present depositions could not be regarded as ; either, as the witness had used all the means .in her power tc refuse to give evidence, and had been literally dragged in and locked up before she submitted to making the statement. 'No girl could have objected, more strongly than the accused had done. ' - ;; Mr. Tole. held that unless force had been used to extract a statement, after the.'. person had been sworn, the depositions were i admissible. When placed in the position of a witness, the accused could have shut her mouth, and nothing could have compelled her to make the statement she did. .; Mr. ; Martin said it was not argument on the part of his friend to say that if a threat was held over a person before being sworn it would not affect that person after being sworn. '- •;.'. .;,-.'"■ '. : '" His Worship (to Mr. Tole): Do you contend that a threat made before a person takes an oath ha? no effect on that person afterwards, and that the present depositions are therefore admissible? '" \\ Mr. Tole : Yes. Your Worship. ' His Worship: It is for you to show that the depositions were voluntary. ; Mr. Tole: Your Worship has Mr. Oresham's evidence to that effect. ; If there is any doubt; in Your Worship's mind I am prepared to, argue. His Worship: Very well, Mr. Tole. The Court then adjourned till this morn-; ing, when argument will be heard at halfpast eleven o'clock.