LILLYWHITE OR BLATCH?

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4259, 19 January 1901, Page 3

LILLYWHITE OR BLATCH?

!<■ i i: riij<:it fvidknck. Acer,SKl) CDMiUTTKIi TO HR (SON. ('ASF TO HE .HROHAHLY RF(>HFN FI). The hearing of I lit l charge agains* O'mrlcs Lillywliil.l', (.hirt, be, being mm Arllinr ill: 1 1i;lj, did murder Alfred VVflc'i al (Sh-be-t er Fngland. on t-ii '■ It l)e- ---< ' Mihcr, IH'Ki, wa- eoimloded .ve-terd.iy before Mr w. I!.. I la.-ebb-n. S.M. , Ml’ Human, I, iiit ed Sialcs Cole ul lor Wellington, was aeCOllimodaled wit 5l II M'Ul, on tie- Bench. Mr Hell. Croun I’mseeii tor, eomillfted Mm en.se. Mr Sken e! t, wiMi lii 111 .Mr Cooper Imiog for <lje defeae;.. Mr |!e!l prodmed ivurr,mts endorsed by ! ii- Excellency U;e Hepnly-Covernor : i.'.i, duly :■ n 1 lien I iei. led. Two warrant- | ill in r.'e, e those of the Coroner who presided n,f Lin* inquest on Weieh. The rei| nisi I ion nod documents attached - doled April, ISiM, wore nl.so tendered to Ihe ('ourl . Mr Hell then re-ealled Sergeant Frosr, who, on liis former oath. certified lo Mm accuracy of till- signatures on the doeuments tendered.

VVilne-e, in reply lo Mr Skerrett, su'd lie hud never heard ol Hl.ileh having -‘ebilious in Hnndon. nor yet in A iriericii. Hlnfell, was not present ill the intpiesi held oil Weieh.

I )el eel ire Nixon wits (lien tendered in ei idenee hy |he Crown. tie said: 1 know Ihe man AlcAlahon who gave < vi-di-nee ye-,tenki,v. 1 went lo Htaki will him in pursuance of an arrangement, made at Ihe hon.se of Mr Smith. Mi Smith i-- a earpenter, and was at one lime a pariner of Hilly White's. I was dii'eeted to look for Aie.Mahon at Smilh’s house. f did not- know he was livin'; lliere. When I calletl at the house I found there Smith, McMahon and a woman who said she was .McMahon's sister.. I cannot say what they were conversing ahou l . At Otnki 1 left McMahon outside a place while T went in to make iinpiiries. When 1 eiune out I failed lo lind McMahon'for half an hour or -a. When I found him I remained witli him for an hour or so, unlil the arrival of Constable t'Ttorke. In company with (he latter we went down lo Ihe house of Kllen Fslhcr Hailey. Ihe woman who gave evidence in Ihe present case. There I said lo .Mrs Hailey, in .lie presi nee of O’Rorke mid Me.Million, “Mi - s Hailey, this is the man AlcAlahon, who .says Mr Skerrell ; T object.

HH Worship said he failed to see how Ihe matter could In- made evidencu. 1,1 might he such later on though. .Mi’ Skerrett pointed omt that AI AlirKon had sworn nothing inconsistent wiHi I h ■ evidence being tendered hy Deled ive Nison, and thorp was no call for adducing hearsay evidence. .Mr Hell said the cardinal point was whel her op not McMahon was the man. who spent the night with the woman Archer. The answer of trio Crown to I lial was Mint -the evidence tendered h;> Mr-Maihon wa.s lire result of a conspiracy. After pointing out that McMahon wars a neighbour of Smith and Lilly white. Mr Hell suggested that McMahon and Smith had trumped up the story told by McMahon.

A cross-la.hle fusillade ensued between Hie two counsel at this point, and at its apex Mr Hasclden interposed, saying he could not sec how it was to he made a dehit matter against the accused that his side had ! roused Smith with a view to making sure of his attendance.'However, he would admit, the statements on Ihe assumption that the Crown would malic them evidence at a later stage. Mr Hell expressed the opinion that it was clear that if Me.oahon was not the man at Otaki it must have been Lillywhite. Mr Haselden demurred. It was even possible that bo Hi accused nncl A'leMnlbou 'might have been there at separate periods on the one night. Detective Nixon’s evidence was then continued. He proceeded : On my presenting McMahon te Mrs Bailey, she said, “I don’t know the man.’’ McMahon said, “That is not the woman at whose house L was.’’ I said to McMahon, “This is the Mrs Hailey who gave evidence, and whom you said yesterday yon wore positive was telling a lie.” He shook his hpad, and said, “Well, [ don’t know.” “What do you think of Dyson’s statement now?’’ I said to Mrs Bailley. “This man McMahon says he was in a Airs Bailey’s house, and he must have had his cap oft*.” I said further, “Now, look at him with bis cap oil'.’’ She failed to identify him.

Mr TTasolden expressed Hip opinion that the prosecution's lino of evidence was going rather far. Cross-examined: McMahon told witness that during his absence he hud boon trying to find tlie bouse' of the oilier Mrs Biulov.

Cross-eNfiniined by Mr Skerrott: 1 know McMal mu to bo an intemperate man. When I found biiu after the interval of twenty minutes lie might have bad one drink, but no more. It did not occur to me that McMahon’s talk about (coking for the bouse was a mere excuse to account for bis absence. Witness would not be surprised to bear that Mrs Bailey bad shifted her residence from (lie bouse in, which she- was living on Hood Friday night. He knew it, but iu view of tho statement of MeMali ou that he did not remember the house iu which he stopped at Otaki witness did not think it of any use asking McMahon to indicate the house. Mr Skerrott: Do you believe that McMahon was tolling you a deliberate lie when he said he sto'jned with Margaret Archer on Good Friday night?— Well, I don’t believe him altogether. I’ll tell yon why. When I arrested Lillvwhite McMahon came to me and I old me ho believed I had got tho right man. Seme of the statements he made were honest enough. Do von know that McMahon and Dyson neither of them know Lillywhito ? Yes, they said so.

ft is true that there were two Mrs Haileys living in Otaki last fined Pridav ?—Yes. Charles Edward Carter, sworn, crossexamined by Mr Cooner, said : I am an employee of Mr R. Martin, painter, nf Manners street. Lillywhite worked under me for a continuous period of one year. He was a good painter and very fair grainer. To aenuire the nrofieienov possessed by Lillywhite would require I raining of from five to seven vears. Cnderslood from conversation I had ..eid with Lillywhite that he was from Amoviea. From the si vie of ins work I did mil (think ho had aequiifd bis tram>> knowledge in the cnlonv. Never knew him to he Ihe worse for Honor. Dm not. think it likely he would he turned‘out of a house for obscenity. , Ho always get. full wages. • Cross-examined by i.ir Bell: Mages at that time were variable in Wellington in the painting trade. Accused was tendered again as a witness, and was examined hv Mr .Skerro.'t regarding entries of work eontainod in no account hook. Two entries of won; I herein he described as havin'* been (lone l.v fn- Hs relative;-: i-' Chh-ngo. To Mr He’l : 'file enino- |n (he In d. Mere made by me a! the time m the dates they hear.

Mr Hell : Look at page (i : Ho you say that that is not a copy?—The entries might hare been made by me with the same pen anti the same ink, hut at airferent times. They are not eepies,. nut ael mil entries. With regard to these entries, f sugm■ I to yon that th.e.v are eopii - ma hpmu previous aeeooiil s. What do you Hvson. a painter, a previous witie.,s, examined bv Air Skerrett, said I lint on (food I'Viday last he was at Oiaki. Me tin-re .-aw AlcAlahon. bn Good i'Tiday night witness slept, at I’ercival’s Hotel. Saw AleAlaimn at Airs Hailey’s that night. Mrs Hailey then lived on the Old Station road. ! had never seen her Imb.re. I went clou n 1 Pere to see Aie.Mahon. I only remained in the tio’ise a, quarter of an hour or -o. McMahon and the woman Areh'-r were there. I think J saw AlcAlahon and Archer together at the Centra! Motel on Saturday. I had a drink with them at '.lie Central Motel on Sunday i-.it enioon. At eight o’clock I hat night f aw them going to Airs Hailey's They

•vere I here when I left late at night. I have" nb doubt whatever that I was; in Mm house of a Mrs Hadey at Otaki on the occasions I have mentioned, f can point mil, the house. I ki nw she has since shifted from there. I have no motive nor intcr-st, in shielding Lillywhite — I never knew of him until ' this case came on. I read in the paper of Airs Hailey's evidence—-then f fame forward. I know no one named Smith in

Wellington. To All- Hell: 1 did not see (lie MrHailey who gave evidence. To the Heneh : The Mrs Hadey whom f saw was dark-featured. To Mr Hell : AleAlaimn was' not lame and he was not. walking with a -tick. I have- known him Cor four or live year.;, .and have worked - with aim at many plan's. I was to see him at (Iraki about giving him a. job on a “paloe.-k----iug" contract I It.id, 1 had kuowi Airs Archer for a good time, I was oat .surprised when I saw the Levin woman (Archer) at Mrs Hailey’s. Mr Hell: Do yo'u really ask the Court to believe that, the man who was a! Airs Hailey’s was AleAlaimn ? Are you not making a. mistake?--! say that the man who was at Airs Hailey’s was AlcAlahon. and no one else hut him. There, were two others with me when I went up on Mm Sunday oigbt, One was named Harrison (a tailor) and a second one Thompson. Me was a traveller for different liiings—machines, etc. 1 believe the latter is about the district yet. I did not mention before' that I beso two men were with me, he-ause 1 did not- know it mattered.

Mr Hell addressed the Court, contnding that there had been an exceptionally strong prima facie case made ( lit. He would not for a minute contend that, a man on mere suspicion should he sent away. If the accused was Lillywhite he stood in no peril whatever. If the accused was that person he would have his innocence established as soon as lie arrived in lingkind. He (Mr Hell) did not argue that l ocalise there would be no risk in that respect there would he no need to hesitate about sending accused to Legl: nd ; hut be would submit that the evidence tendered had in many respects placed a strong presumptive, case before the Court.

Air Skerrett asked that the application for extradition he dismissed, on two grounds—the first on technical grounds connected with the method of taking rhe depositions; and the .-eci:nd on the ground that the evidence of identification was far from complete. It was perfectly clear from the Fugitive Offenders’ Act, that his Worship ci.«M not look at a deposition unless it wartaken before a Magistrate, ’flic depositions put in wore signed by the Colchester Coroner, and he (Mr bkerrort) submitted that a Coroner was net a Magistrate. That Coroner had authority, to hold a coronial inquest, bub not to take evidence for the, purposes of the Act under which tnese proceedings wenbeing taken. Counsel elaborated his contention that tho deposition was inadmissible bv copious quotations from legal text-books, "and declared his inability to conceive l ow any respectable argument could be advanced against he contentions.'

Mr Haselden expressed the opinion that section 29 applied equally to the proceedings taken in New Zealand as to the English proceedings.

Air Skerrett, cnntinuimr.said he would ask that any doubt existing in the magisterial mind might be cast iii favour cl his client.

Mr Haselde n said ho certainly expected to ha ve seen fre«n evidence disclosed in tho dpositions forwarded from England. However, (mi defence had still iiabeas corpus to rely upon. Mr Skerretl said Mint was an expensive procedure, but tin- Magistrate said he would see that proper representations would be made to the Grown in the event of accused’s monetary resources being unwind' to the strain. Mr. Skerrett, resuming, said that all the evidence tendered in the case waopon to the liability of error. Drawbridge had not seen accused for thirteen years, and had never spoken to him according to his own account; and it was nine years since either Frost or Marsh had seen him—and these two latter failed to recognise him. He also submitted that, the documentary evidence before the Court clearly proved that if accused had honestly ac:|iiired them be must he Lilly white and not Blotch. There was ample evidence to prove that Charles L.llywhite was in Tacoma from 1890 to 1899, and that in 1894 he came to Sydney, as certified to by Colonel Bell. The .signature to one of LUlywhito’s papers of discharge ,wa.s undoubtedly signed by accused, and though, as suggested h.v .Mr Bell, it was possible that the accused could have written his name thereon, it was obvious that in case of a forgery 'having been perpetrated by accused he would have signed both dis. charges, and not have left one blank. The letters written to the accused Lillywhite by his pari nor Clark iu Tacoma were a proof that the present accused was the person who had resided there. Then, too. (here was the confidential correspondence from London sent to accused here. The hypothesis that accursed had ae.'iuired the papers of Lnlywbite by felonious or other means was untenable when viewed in the light of information adduced. The accused had undoubtedly been in America, and had landed ad Sydney in 1894. If accuse:! was [Hatch he must in a period of eight months at least (the time between the

date of the murder and t.hat ot accused arrival in Sydney; have acquired the trade of a painter and become conversant with the affair- of Lillywlute. Then: was, too. rhe fact that on ac-

cused’s arrival in V* cllinj/toii there waat Auckland a letter awaiting accused from Ids partner (dark. Counsel teferr.-i to the evidence given hy the witnes-e-, Marsh and Frost (the English witnesse-l as being the most extraordinary he had over heard.

Air llaselden put it to Air Skerrett whether it would not he better fur the

accused t« go Home to England and there triumphantly—presuming him to be innocent —refute the charge levelled against him, than to tie here discharged upon a technical ground, and have attached to idni for life the stigma, that would follow upon such an escape. Mr Skerrett said that was very well : but what about the expense and the lengthy further period that would, elapse? There wonid, too, as suggested by accused, be tnc expense of a passage back. Air Bell said that would be covered by compensation which would lie allowed hy the Crown ; hut Mr Skerrett demurred that past history did not hear out such a. suppostion. Air Bell, referring to the matter oi Mm legal points raised ..y Air Skerrett, said that the depositions wen; in his opinion properly taken and ijiute aumissihle. He quoted from the ease t 1 Regina v. Rowlands, in which spicilic provision was made for the purpose or taking depositions, where it had been impossible to take the same in i lie ordinary manner. Had that decision oeen made in the opposite way, then Uic-re would have been a backing for Air Skerrett’s contention; but in the lorm ef the decision which was arrived at tnere was a strong support for the Crown's present contention. Air Skerrett briefly objected to the local police not having taken steps to ascertain from the Tacoma authorities whether or- Jic.t accused was known to them. „ , •- '

Air Haselden said' that course had been open th The accused himself. On the conclusion of the addresses of counsel, his Worship said, with regard to the objection raised by Mr Skerrett, that ho (Mr Haselden) considered section 39 of the Fugitive . Offenders Act to be qualified by other provisions, he did not think tho form of deposit ions there referred to were the only kind admissible to th'e case. If his decision were the final one to be given lie would reserve it and take- time to consider it—but it only meant that he would commit accused, and that the matter could' then be further tested before a Supreme Court Judge or again when the warrant of committment was asked for. To. deckle tho matter, .he thought, would be too great an assumption of power on lus part. With regard to tne whole merits of the case, he would say that he put aside altogether the evidence adduced nv cither side as to Otaki. He was actuated hy the oaths of the witnesses Drawbridge, Frost and- Marsh. They had bad an excellent opportunity of considering the matter of identity, ami they said finally that they had not the slightest doubt as to accused being the man Blatch. There was not the slightest reason to suppose that any influence had actuated them -to swear to accused’s identity with Mlatch against their better judgmoiit—-rather in tha-c case would they have said the New Zealaiid; police wero wrong and so have made an end to the matter. Biit witti all hesitation at first—which lie (Mr Haselden) did not think in any way weighed against their ultimate testimony—they gradually became more positive in their identification, and at last surely identified the accused as Blatch. Air Haselden added : “1 am,c.ei’tain„ oX this, though':' that if -the accused is Charles Liflywh.ite, It-ds^he' best tiling foe him that he should go to Englam... where he need be under no fear of condemnation if he is an innocent man. li he values his character, a full trial is much to be desired in his case, I think. Putting aside much extraneous matter, my plain duty, I think, is to commit accused to prison, there to await the return of the warrant, and to be surrendered after the exiry of fifteen days from the present date.” Air Skerrett intimated that he would apply for a writ of habeas corpus—rue effect of which will be a re-oponing of tho whole case before a Supreme Court Judge.