TRIALS FAIL

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 8733, 15 May 1914, Page 3

TRIALS FAIL

CHARGE OF RIOTING. CASE AGAINST ROBERT HILL LAPSES. Robert Hill, in whose case two 'juries bad disagreed at the previous (session, was again tried in the Supremo Court yesterday on the charge icf taking part in a riot in Taranaki

street on November 4th last. Tho third hearing took place before His Honour Mr Justice Hosking and a jury of twelve. Mr H. H. Ostler, Crown Law Officer, conducted the prosecution, and Mr E. J. Fitzgibbon appeared for (the accused. Before the case was commenced, Mr ''Fitzgibbon applied, under section 3 of ithe amended Justices of the Peace ;Act, for the granting of legal aid to .’the prisoner at the expense of tho Crown. In support of the application, lie mentioned that tho accused had already been, compelled to bear the expense of two trials. Ho (counsel) had written to the Justice Department ion the matter, and had been referred jto tho Crown Law Office. An adjournment was made to 'Chambers, where the application was granted, counsel being assigned to prisoner and a recommendation made ,ithat his costs be paid. Evidence as at the previous trials 'was given for tho Crown by Mrs Mackintosh (licensee of tho Royal Tiger Hotel), Constable Longbottom, Constable McDonell, Inspector Hendrcy, and Detective-Sergeant Cassells. Mr Fitzgibbon then called evidence for the defence. The accused stated that on the date in question ho was employed by a milk-vending firm. A iter finishing his day’s work he walked Trom Elizabeth street to Taranaki street, which ho reached a few minutes before 9 o’clock. He saw the police, with Campbell in their charge, but denied interfering with them. He was about to light a cigarette, when he saw a bottle fly past him and strike a constable. David Perrin, law clerk, and Henry Lake, the accused’s employer, also gave evidence. In addressing the jury Mr Fitzgibbon referred to the fact that two previous juries could not make up their minds that the accused was guilty. He had placed Hill in the witness-box so that they might see what type of man he was. Counsel mentioned that tho accused’s statements had been consistent rigljt through, from the time that he was arrested until the present. Counsel submitted that the Crown had not produced sufficient evidence to satisfy the jury that tho accused was guilty. There was at least a .reasonable doubt, and they must give him the benefit of it. Sir Ostler agreed with counsel for the defence that, before they could find the accused guilty, they must he satisfied that the Crown hod proved its case.

After being out for the legal limit of four hours, the jury announced at half-past 7 o’clock last night that they were unable to agree.