SENTENCED TO DEATH.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LV, Issue 16775, 15 February 1918, Page 4

SENTENCED TO DEATH.

WEST COAST MURDERER. EGGERS FOUND GUILTY. CASE FOE THE DEFENCE. NO EVIDENCE TENDERED. JUDGE PRAISES POLICE. [BY TELEGHAFH.—PHESS ASSOCIATION.'] CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday. The trial of William Eggers McMahon. otherwise known as Frederick William Eggere, charged with having murdered John Coulthard on November 9, 1917, near Greymouth, and with having, at the same time and place, attempted to murder William Hall and Isaac James; also with having stolen the sum of £3659 16s Bd, was concluded at the Supreme Court this evening before Mr. Justice Chapman. The jury found accused guilty and he w;i3 senenced to death.

Mr. S. G. Raymond, K. C, prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. Accused was defended by Mr. W. J. Hunter.

Elizabeth McMahon gave evidence as to interviews with accused and the police subsequent to the tragedy. Witness stated that a watch, chain, and pendant, costing £46, were bought by her. The money she gave accused when they went out together comprised a roll of notes. The pistol, produced, or one similar, was at their lodging in Christchurch all the time Eggers was on the West Coast. When accused left on October 23 he had a good deal of money, including a large roll of notes. The pistol was bought for her by accused, as she wanted to learn to shoot, She was surprised when she learned there was a pistol in the brief bag with a quantity of ammunition, as she never knew Eggers to take the pistol out, and she knew he had not taken it to the West Coast.

Proceeding, witness said that a statement said to have been made by Eggers, to the effect that the police had enough evidence to hang him six times over, was not made in her presence. A pair of nailed boots, produced, belonged to the accused, and had been in her room. Eggers had not taken them to the West Coast.

His Honor: Did you know what accusod's business was?

Witness: Just what he told me. I never asked him particularly. Eggers had said he dealt in stock, and had mentioned dealing in land. She had reason to believe he received monthly cheques for commission, and could say for certain sho had seen letters containing money. Witness was always at work, and did not know accused's business movements. She was not aware that accused was supposed to be an expert revolver shot. Lucy Thompson, lodginghouse-keeper, of No. 286, Gloucester Street, said the accused first went to her house on September 11. He told her he was working for Anthonv Hordern, Sydney. W. H. Tisdall, gunsmith, gave expert evidence regarding the revolvers, and this concluded the evidence for the prosecution. Crown Case Submitted to the Jury. Mr. Hunter said he did not intend to call any evidence for the defence. The Crown Prosecutor thereupon addressed the jury. He said the evidence showed that the attempt on the State mine motor-car was the second that had been made within a fortnight. On October 26 a fallen tree had been found on the Bide of the road. Trie highwayman had learned his lesson. He had found he required a good look-out and that the obstruction must be placed in position at the last possible moment? The facts all led to the conclusion that the crime was carried out by one man, Accused was no stranger to the West Coast. During his several visits thereto it was shown he was constantly on the roads leading to Eunanga. The closest habitation to the scene of the tragedy was Mr. Alcock's cottage. The owner had seen a man in the house on November 3, and from the evidence of others there was, Mr. Raymond contended, no reason to doubt that the man was the accused. What was the reason for a man, said to be a land dealer and commercial traveller, occupying an uninhabited house? The man who occupied the cottage and the accused were one and the same he claimed. The identification was clear. < "I come now to a piece of evidence that is overwhelming," continued Mr. Raymond. " I refer to the arrest of the accused a few days later, with the missing money in his possession." Unless Eggers could show how this money came into his possession, he must be accounted responsible for the manner in which it had been acquired-in this case by robbery accompanied with murder. The stolen property was before them, yet not from start to finish was a word of explanation given by the accused. It was something more than coincidence, he contended, that the two classes of bullets and cartridges found in the bodies of Mr. Hall and Mr. Coulthard and also gathered from the scene of the' tragedy, and, those discovered in the accuseds possession, were one and the same-namely Peters's and Winchester ammunition to fit a .32 calibre automatic pistol.

Mr. Hunter's Address for the Defence.

Mr. Hunter, in his address for the defence, referred to disadvantages which he said, accused had been under since his arrest. He pointed out that it was only a week or a few day« before his trial in the Supreme Court that he was provided with counsel. He asked whether the Crown had proved to the jury's complete satisfaction that Eggers was the man who committed the crime. If they had any doubt then accused wag entitled to the benefit of the doubt. He submitted that accused was not the man who committed the crime. The case narrowed itself down to a question of identification. The Crown asked the jury to presume that the man seen in the empty cottage was the man who committed the crime. No one had come before the Court and said: " I saw that man commit the crime," or "I saw that man discharge a pistol into the body of Mr. Coulthard." To introduce presumption was monstrous in a murder case. Counsel contended that the fact that there was another empty cottaee near the scene of the crime, further back from the road, and a little further away, made it doubtful whether the man who occupied the cottage nearest the scene of tho tragedy was the man who committed the crime. It would bo more reasonable for any man planning such a crime to hide himself in the cottage further back, where he would not be so liable to be observed.

t The evidence of identification was un- | reliable, continued Mr. Hunter, and the ! jury could not safely accept it. Referring j to the weapons alleged to have been used I by the murderer, counsel said the pistols I produced in Court were not identified, and | if the accused had committed the crime | these pistols would not have been found lon his person. The jury might ask, how ! did the accused get the money? It was not for accused on the present indictment | to explain where he got the money. What ! would the murderer do with the money? ■ He would plant it somewhere clo6e at ! hand, in the bush.

I Counsel further contended that no ade-

quate steps were taken to find the mur- , derer, as the police ought to have had a cordon of men thrown" out. If this had been done the murderer would possibly have been captured the same day as the crime was committed. In conclusion, Mr. Hunter suggested it was possible that the money had been found, and that the finder had yielded to a sudden temptation and decided to keep it. Mr. Justice Chapman, in summing up, j said that in the absence of direct evidence identifying Eggers as the person who committed the crime, it was incumbent on the Crown, by means of cogentevidence, to show that the accused was the person who participated in the crime, or alone committed it. The crime appeared to have been carefully planned. His Honor emphasised the fact' that there was no evidence respecting any legitimate occupation or business of Eggers in the i Runanga district, or, for that matter, on

the West Coast. Accused's correction in the lower Court, at Greyraouth, of Mr. James's evidence, as to the impossibility of -Mr. James having been able to see the car from a certain point on the railway, indicated minute familiarity with the locality. His Honor went on to refer to the identity of the cartridges. Two kinds that could be used in an automatic pistol -Peters's and Winchester—had been used to kill the unfortunate man Coulthard, and some of those two kinds of cartridges were found in the ■ accused's brief bag. But, all this evidence was of secondary importance compared with the evidence respecting the finding of a large sum of the missing money in accused's possession. Counsel had made the point that accused was not answering a charge of theft. If that sort of thing satisfied the jury, well and good, but, how could they separate the stealing from the murder? The law expected a man who was found in possession of property of enormous value, six days after it was stolen, if he was an honest man, to give an explanation, and some assistance. However, no explanation had been given. That was the whole question so far as the jury was concerned, and they were quite entitled to say the nun who stole the money was the man who murdered Coulthard.

Pound Guilty and Sentenced to Death. The jury retired at 6.38 p.m. and returned at 8.51 p.m., bringing in a verdict of guilty. When asked if he had anything to say the accused seemed to make an attempt to articulate, but did not say anything. His Honor, assuming the black cap, said : Prisoner at the Bar. The jury have discharged their duty in the only manner in which they could have discharged it, in accordance" with the evidence. I have to discharge my duty in the only manner in which the law allows. The sentence of the Court is that you be taken to the place of execution, and there be hanged until you are dead. Eggers, who showed no signs of emotion, was then removed from the dock. Before dissolving the Court, His Honor said : " I think the thanks of the country are due to the detectives, and the police officers assisting them, for the manner in which they have brought this offender to justice;'to Detective Ward for the way in which the West Coast evidence was brought together; and to DetectiveSergeant Connolly and Detective Abbott for the manner in which they conducted the investigations and arrest. No doubt other officers, and some of the general public, are entitled to a measure of credit for their assistance." His Honor ordered that the money found on the person of the accused, and in his hag, be declared the property of the Crown. The only thing he had any doubt about, he said, was the three ten-pound notes, which might be a matter for consideration later. His Honor made the order with the reservation that if any application was made to him with regard to those notes, he reserved the matter for consideration. The Court then adjourned.