SHOOTING SENSATION

NZ Truth, Issue 849, 25 February 1922, Page 5

SHOOTING SENSATION

Ructions at Ranfuriy

Farmer Fined. Fifty Flimsies

(From "Truth's" Dunedin Rep.)

•Included m the cases brought before Mr. Justice Sim were the Ranfuriy shooting , "affair, and *.a charge of at-' tempted murder. Though .-.•. seripusly niafned, .these cases were of a trifling nature- '* v ' .' >

In the latter case, Edmund Traherrie was" charged, with attempting to mur.der George Wilson, at. Cannibal Bay, near Qiwaka. .Accused was. found riot guilty. In the Ranfuriy affair, George .Devenney was found guilty 1 of 'shooting with intent to do grievous bodily harm to -William G-. Dowling. The jury addled a strong recommendation tp mercy. His Honor stated that 'the -police re-| port said that the prisoner seldom conversed with other people,., was inclined to imagine things, and .was of violent temper. He was ,vexy particular about his clothes, which he wore very tight . He was always ih a hurry. The prisoner appeared to have somewhat started tlie .trouble by ,

TRAILING HIS COAT before Dowling. Lawyer Hanlon; Yes, inviting !hlm to tread on it. He is !an prarigeman. His Honor: Ohl I thought it was the other way ;about~that Dowling was the Orangeman. In view of the prisoner's age, 63, his otherwise good character, and the jury's strong recommendation to mercy, his Honor imposed a fine'^of £'50 with an, order that iDevenney-.'give up his firearms.. '..-■/' Lawyer Hanlon to prisoner -.■ Do you consent to give up the firearms? > Prisoner: Yes, m the meantime. His Honor: In the meantime! , *■ Law3 r er Hanlon: That's all right. I'll, speak to him, _ -..-''■

of. noticing her bearing arid considering the manner m which she was able to stand up to cross- examination! But there had been no such ■ advantageThere, was only a typed statement taken ; from her .when she was ill' and under circumstances of. which the jury knew nothing. Would' the -jury be prepared tp. act on ' such a . deposition without cdrroboration .and,- as- the Crown suggested, convict 'thd prisoner? It-was, not essential that everything said by the .Crown witnesses should be corroborated^but there must be corroboration tending^to. show that it was indeed Hayne , who actually procured miscarriage. It was- not sufficient for the Crown to bring corroboration merely of the fact. 'that a miscarriage had been procured by someone; True, the woman ha-d' a miscarriage, but had there '.been, any evi--dence put forward to show. that> she had undergone any Operation' which caused her to abort ? Even ,- the doctor who attended her m the Timaru Hospital was ..'._ *

UNABLE TO SAY. DEFINITELY that there had been such an operation. So that at 'the very initiation of the Crown's case there was a. -lack of corroboration and nothing tp , even show that an illegal operation had been, performed. But, supposing- the Crown had shown this, was there any. corroboration \to show that. Hayne was responsible ? Of course, the deceased had described Hayne's premises m detail and a good deal of what she had said was true, but because She was able to describe what was m the various rooms of the place, it, didn't follow that sho was- operated upon. She might have gone, to the shop to see dogs pr flowers, of which Hayne was an ardent fancier. In .his opening, Mr. Donrielly did riot refer . to. the savings bank bppk, which absolutely contradicted the principal witness — the deceased. .Neither had he referred to, the fact that Mrs. Atkins .m her statement said nothing about her brother meeting her, at the Railway station or Hayne's shop. Why had not these facts been mentioned •?. Because there could not be found an explanation of the points which, would arise consequent .on that evidence being put in.^"Deceased deposed that from October 7 to October 14 she was: under treatment at Hayne's place, ■ but, on October 10, while she was suppdsed to be lyii}g ill m the very heart of Dunedin, she: writes to her brother:

Dear -Fred.— Just writing- to say I am having a good, tifrie and feelingall right. .

Sh"? wouldn't have been having a good tim'ie and feeling -all right at Hayne's, commented counsel. Gontiriuing, the letter said :.'"'" v

I hope .to see you m a few days and will ring .you when I arrive m town. ".' ■ 7

If the woman was at Hayne's and m Dunedin, 'asked counsel, why would she have written .to her brother, only a stone's throw away, saying that she; would 'phone him when she came to town? The Jetter made it seem that on October) 10, when the .Crown said she was ill m bed at Hayne's, tlie .woman wasn't m Dunedin at> all. Mr. Hanlon 1 * . . CHALLENGED, AN EXPLANATION of that letter and said/it was evidently because of the difficulty- of explanation that, the Crown had carefully avoided its discussion. Hilton's statement also was not dwelt upofi because- he mentioned something* about which ■ 7 the chief witness had had nothing to say. The deceased's bank book, was another iteni which had been avoided- Was there a reason for it'?'/ Yes,' the bank book spattered the Crown's case. The bank book showed that on -October 6, deceased drew , f rpnW the bank £63, which had been paid, m m 1920. In lier "depositions, however, TVlrs. Atkins had said Hayne was paid by the party .who' Vas\the 'cause* of. her" trouble. On the face of the fact that she, had about £6.3 which 'had been m the bank since 1920 arid which left', her ,wi th a £ 5 credit,/ was it not 'her own," /and not someone . else's riiohey \ she had paid, according 'to her statement, tp Hay rie ? - Counsel referred also to the douches and other instruments found on the premises of Hayrie. "He expressed /the opiniori that: they w.ere ordinary- instruments -which' anyone Would*, expect to find . m a* chemist's shop, and*, no • importance could be attachedtb their introduction into the case. ■' •• . | In concluding, lytr. Hanlon contended that there • were ' ■>'•

SERIOUS DISCREPANCIES m the Crown's case,' arid, what little corroboration that had been brought was altogether : too weak .to justify any jury m convicting when all the circumstances, were taken*.. into consideration. - '■""■ L "'*-.'••■'•

Summing-up, - his ■' Honor said • that when the . depositions of <_ Mrs. Atkins had been taken, Mr.. Hanlori 'had had, every opportunity of cross-gxarnining her. There was, also npthirig irregu-. lar m the Crown Prosecutor's sum-ming-up,- -as it rested entirely upon •his judgment and discretion whether he summed-up or not.., After two hours? retirement, the jury returned and the foreman asked whether *the Crown iwould call the nurse whom the "deceased m her depositions had said was m attendance at Hayne's. ' i His Pfonor replied that m another case a liosition had arisen where such, a witness, had refused to answer and had had to be committed for contemptAccording to the depositions of the deceased, the nurse m question would .be a party to the offence and could riot be rriade to give evidence which might tend to incriminate her. , After an aggregate retirement of four hours, the jury were unable to a>gree. and- a new trial was fixed .for next; Monday, bail /being fixed as before, .iri two sureties of -£'600.