JOSEPH POWELKA FOUND NOT GUILITY

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7140, 30 May 1910, Page 1

JOSEPH POWELKA FOUND NOT GUILITY

McGuire murder trial concludes JURY UNANIMOUSLY EXONERATE DETECTIVE QUARTERMAIN from: our own correspondent.

PALMERSTON, May 29. Tho trial of Joseph John Povrelka on a charge of murdering Police Sergeant McGuire at Palmerston. North on April 10th was concluded here yesterday, accused being found not guilty. • A rider was added exonerating Detective Quartermain from all blame in connection with th© affair. Powelka broke down when the verdict, which is very popular here, was announced. Tho case was hoard by Mr Justice Cooper. Mr C. A. Lougbnan conducted tho case for the Crown, while Mr H. Gifford Moore appeared for accused. There was a largo crowd in the court to witness the concluding stages, which consisted in the addresses of counsel, his Honor's summing up and the verdict. Accused followed the proceedings with keen attention. MR MOORE’S ADDRESS. In his address Mr Mooro saiu the first thing he proposed to do was to ask. tho jury to put away from their minds all the sensational statements published in the newspapers about the recent happenings. There was no doubt that the accounts published had influenced the people in condemning accused for eveiytliing. There was no evidence as to accused's whereabouts after he had disappeared over the terrace on the Pohangina river on the Saturday prior to the murder. There was nothing to show what time the letter wa-s put into ! th© billycan at Grammars. Evidence for the defence had shown it was impossible for the letter to halve been placed there before dark. After that i the Crown had attempted to prove that i accused arrived in Palmerston ‘before I 9.30, but the jury had to remember that the ordinary avenues of travel were closed to him. If he had arrived j Palmerston before 9.30 he must have j visited Slattery's before going to Par- j land's, and tho Crown had sought to ! prove ho did so. The only evidence 1 they liad was that of the fingerprint expert. It was quite possible that the i fingerprints were found on Slattery's I bottle next morning, but there was no | evidence to show when those prints were ! placed on the bottle. They might have j been on for weeks. The key was the

only clue the Crown had of accused breaking into . Parland's house. If the jury found that tllo key'did. not belong to Mrs Parland they would ■ have to find ■accused hod not broken into her house. If so, on& of the very strongest points or the Crown's case was gone entirely. Th© Crown’s theory was that the cap found on Hampton's lawn was stolen from Parland's by the person who broke into the house. The next thing tine Crown brought forward was the wirelaying at Hampton's on the Saturday night. If the accused had laid the wares he would, when arrested, have borne tlie scar of the cut which, according to Hampton, had left so much blood on the drive.

HAMPTON'S EXPERIENCES. * Then came Hampton's experiences of the i Sunday night, Iramptou had said that I when he heard the thud of a man jump- j ing the fence on the other side, of the I road it was about 7.15, and he recognised 1 that man. Counsel contended that at 7.15 on that night it was quite dark. The defence had called evidence to show that an hour after sunset it was at that time as dark as it would be at any time during the night. The witnesses called by the defence stated that they had made demonstrations, and even on a moonlight night it was impossible to recognise- a man after-be had got inside the gate. The Crown had attempted to fit the prisoner with a. three-quarter coat alleged to have been stolen from. Lane's; but Lane had given an opinion that the coat was not stolen till after Tuesday, and, therefore, if the man

. was wearing a three-quarter coat when Hampton saw him he could not have been , the prisoner.. Counsel then dealt with 1 the affair on the lawn, and Detective . Quartermain's part in it. He contended that the statement given by Quartermain immediately after the occurrence to Dr Wilson was more likely to.be the accurate one. Ho ridiculed Hampton’s statement that he -hoard a cry from the intruder, which ho recognised as accused’s voice. That -was little more of Hampton’s padding. There was no evidence to show how far off Quartermain and Hampton were from, the two men struggling on the lawn. The evidence waa absolutely unreliable, and it was just as likely that Hampton and Quartermain might have run right into the other two before the shots were fired. There was also confusion as to tho number of shots fired. Counsel read the deceased man’s evidence, and contended that he was uncertain who had shot him. Whether McGuire’s death was the result of the assailant’s shot or an accident -of Quartermain’s revolver was the question the jury had to decide. Tire question of ammunition was nest dealt with, and counsel said Tiadall’s evidence waa that the appropriate ammunition for Quartermain’s revolver was one of two kinds, and the bullet found in deceased’s body was one of those kinds. Why did not the Crown call Mr Purdy, the owner of Quartermain’s revolver, to say absolutely that bo had given ' the revolver to Quartermain, but no ammunition with it? Till that was done, that avenue _ had not been closed, and there was still a possibility of Quartermain being responsible. In regard to the blow from the handcuffs, Mr Moore pointed out that the first thing the police would have done when accused was arrested would bo to iqok for a mark on his face, or any other scars on him. But no evidence whatever had been given on that point. SERGEAISTT McGXJIEE’S STATEMENT. Sergeant McGuire’s statements made it clear that his assailant was wearing a hart hat;" if so, then the cap found had no significance. Referring to the weighing of the bullets counsel referred to the comparison in tie weights. .Mr Tisdall had stated absolutely thaf all the bullets were of a standard weight, but the weighings showed that Quarter-; main’s bullets varied from 78| to 83 grains. ; It had to be proved aboslutely that the bullet Tound in McGuire’s body was identical with that found in Powelka’s revolver. That was the main strand in the Crown’s rope. If that went then tho rope would go too. Counsel considered it peculiar that the police had not looked

for a man with a scar on his face. There was nothing "gallant" at all about the ayreet..‘Accused was asleep ufc the £imo. Ho was worn out with long travel, and the stout he had drunk had sent him into a sound sleep. If accused had been the desperado he was made out to be, he would not have been arrested so easily or without bloodshed. In working tip the defence, counsel said ho had received every consideration from Detectives Cassells and Siddells, but he had to protest against what die termed the gross unfairness of the v arresting ' police in questioning accused when they I' knew he was to be* charged with murder. Counsel did not think the jury would believe for one moment that accused had made the remark attributed by the police. • It was very strange that none of ■ the civilians had been called. The police said the words were spoken very low; that was not consistent with the words used by accused, but was probably stated so -that the civilians would not have to be called. In conclusion Mr Moore contended that the Grown had to leave noj thing m the region of conjecture, and . thej' had not done so. The jury could I not convict a man on such evidence. A significant fact in the case was that accused still retained - possession of the rej volvers till arrested. One of the things j always looked ior in an accused person was tljo attempted concealment of any weapon with which the murder had been committed. If accused had shot McGuire, would not the first thing he would have done been to get rid of the revolver? Could he not easily have dropped the revolver and cartridges into the river? He would still have one revolver left. But accused had not done so, and his retention of the revolver was not the action of a guilty man. It was a thousand times better to let a guilty man off than to convict an innocent one. rou TH£ CROWN. Mr Loughnan, for the prosecution, contended that all the points indicated in his opening address had been' proved. Sufficient evidence had been called to support, all his points. After briefly touching on all the xxunts made by counsel for the defence, he said the central aspect,of the matter was the identifi'cataon of Mrs Parland's key, the cap, and the bullet. . It had been stated the key

and lock wore of a type exceedingly common. First there was Mrs Farland’s absolute identification of the key, and she had explained how the rust marks had got on to the key. Mrs Wilson had been asked about a key on a nail in her shed, but she had denied that it was there.The accused had no.key he left the cells m "Wellington. The key fitted the lock from which it was missed and it was found on accused. Fobinson had no doubt that the cap was his. It was missed from Farland’s and was found on the lawn. If the sergeant was right in saying his assailant had a hard hat it was quite possible that he could also have had a cap. It was not necessary to prove that the cap was worn by the assailant. It was only necessary to'prove that it had been left, by him. The weights of the bullets showed that four bullets taken from L.C.F. cartridges in. Powclka’s possession only differed in one grain. The bullet taken from the deceased’s body weighed 82 grains, and was entirely different in* every particular to any of Quartermain’s ammunition. There could be no suggestion that Quartermain had shot McGuire. There was the evidence of the scorched clothing, showing that the fatal shpt must have been fired at very close range, and there, was no suggestion that Quartermain was at close range ■when ho fired. The finger prints at Slattery’s showed the accused was in the vicinity of Farland’s that night. In regard to the positions of the actors on the lawn, Quartermain and Hampton had been very careful in defining their positions, and no contradiction could be

found in any of the other evidence. Counsel agreed in regard to the breach of justice committed by a police officer in asking an accused man questions. But in the present instance this had not been done, for Constable Thompson had clearly stated that he did not know that accused was to be charged with murder •when he asked him the question, “v.uo shot poor McGuire?" There was nothing to lead the jury to conclude that the story had been concocted by the constables. Counsel asked was the answer to the question consistent with guilt? If so it was strong corroboration of the other evidence. If not it did not in any way weaken the other evidence. Accused was a fugitive from lawful custody; ho was found in possession of revolvers when arrested. He wanted those revolvers for no lawful purpose whatever. ■When an attempted arrest was made at Pahiatua he was in possession of a revolver; when arrested his revolver was at full-cock. These facts showed that accused carried arms for the purpose, of resisting arrest. Finally counsel said it was his duty to present the whole of the aspects of his case in the strongest way possible consistent with fairness and justice, and he hojicd he had done so. HIS HONOR SUMS UP. His Honor commenced his summing up after the luncheon adj enrolment. He impressed upon the jury the caution given by both counsel that they must set aside anything they had heard out> side regarding the prisoner. The ease depended on circumstantial evidence. It was said that the case depended on a chain, and that if one link in the chain

were broken the case failed. Such evidence might now be likened to a rope, each, strand of which, though not strong enough to stand alone, was strong enough to stand when the several strands were together. Circumstantial proof must be such as to exclude every possible chance of the prisoner's innocence. The inference of guilt must be bused soundly beyond reasonable doubt. He explained what giving the prisoner the benefit of the doubt meant, find said that the jury should not convict unless the evidence established beyond doubt the prisoner’s guilt. McGuire was shot while in the execution! of his duty. The real question was, did the prisoner fire the shot? The Crown contended that he did, and the defence was-.—(1) That Bowelka was not the inan, and (2) that there was a reasonable possibility of Quartermain having fired the fatal shot. There was a strong body of evidence that Quartermain could not have been the one who shot McGuire. The condition of the clothing was of great importance, as it was evidence showing that the shot was fired at very

close quarters. They would have many things to consider before finding accused K ul t y '„ An ? tller stron S feature was that ■the bullet found in McGuire's body did not m any way correspond with Quarremain s ammunition. Ho reviewed tho evidence of the Crown claiming to trade the accused to Hampton's. All these circumstances went to establish the probability of the accused’s presence on the lawn on the night of the tragedy. Regarding the tests which had afterwards made in the locality, it was unfortunate that they bad not been made the" hoottnr rer to ftat ° f tte h ° Ur ° f

WAS THEBE A MISTAKE? McGTiire might have been - mistaken eSffg* st r{^ De - th -f “ an with his handcuffs. The missile found in McGuire's body corresponded in tyne ehVrnefl and weight the bullets found *£ Dowelka a six-chambered revolver. If the jury had a reasonable doubt as to whether the Crown had established the case against the prisoner it was their duty to acquit him. There was n 7 , 1U A e "’ Zea 'nnd such as in Scotland of not proven." They had only one of two verdicts to return H r fh 0t SuiUy ’" al, d the law fvl.fi * , as the la w of some Cont mental countries did, to convict oi> suspicion There might be a strong snT picion that the prisoner charged was t * ie , c ”nie. The Crown's duty , a p stalll w that suspicion into P ™ f - J-ho jury s duty was not to cons';*; ti lcss th ® y .' vere positively certain that those suspicions were of such a doubt° te if +?m t<> li eXC K de every Possibl-e doiibt. If the allegations were not sufficiently strong, but left a suspicion that the case was not proved, the law » quired that the prisoner should he ae-' quitted rather than convict upon what amounted to a strong suspicion, hut not prool. His Honor s summing un own pied an hour and a half. The jury retired at ten minutes fo tour. In the meantime Powelka bore U P well, but it was observable that the strain was telling on him. He went once quietly. Sub-Inspector O’Donovan asked those assembled not to make any demonstration, whatever the verdict. THE'VERDICT.

Two hours after retiring the jury returned with a verdict of “Not Guilty" ■lt was_ further stated that the verdict was at on the grounds of insufficient evidence. Let the prisoner be removed and clear the crowd, ’ said his Honor, and the crowd filed out without a murmur. The foreman said that the jury wished him to state that they exonerated Quartermain. His Honor: “Yes, I think it is due to Detective Quarter-main." The following was the written exoneration: “The jury unanimously agree in exonerating Detective Quartermain from all blame in connection with the shooting of Sergeant McGuire." His Honor said he would forward that on to the Police Department. Powelka broke down after the verdict was given. He was convulsed and wept somewhat, but not at all violently. His Hrfhor ordered his removal to another room until he recovered.