THE RAMSAY-CAIRNS' CASE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 12607, 10 March 1903, Page 7

THE RAMSAY-CAIRNS' CASE.

:' a committal . for trial. • Hearing .of the' charge against Thomas Ramsay and John Cairns of hiving oii February 10 assaulted -with violenco and robbed Thomas Beid 0f£285,: was resumed at the City Police Court'before Mr C. C. Graham, S.M., yesterday, ; Mr Fiaser appearing to prosecuto, Mr Hanlon lor" Ramsay, and Mr Irwin lor Cairns. His Worship: I may is well say, Mr Irwin, J.'consider this •, case to answer; so X shall caution tho defendants, and you can say what m desue afterwards. _ ' Mr ■ Itwui , (accused, having been duly cautioned)' said the evidence in the case was naturally-circumstantial. There was no direct evidence of the. crime of assault and robbery having-been committed by the accused. X a only direct evidonco obtainable would be tnat of a person who saw:the actual occurrence, or the possession of tho 6tolen property. ese two things were missing, and the who:lo resolved into tho question whether tho evidcnca of the Crown'witnesses was sufficient on which to convict the accused for trial. It ™ Intention to 'show .that the CTitoceofthese ' "/itneeses waa not'correct, and jhattbey had TO ad. a mistake. The evidence lor tho town was patchy, taking it altogether. It ™ nt J° show that tlie two accused were at tho Reclaimed'ground'between the hours o! 10 a.m. and 3 am. on 'February 16, and that tho actual occurrenco.took place about -8 o clock. As far as concerned his client—Cairns—no was going to show that ho could aosoluteiy disprove the greater part - of the evidence for tho Crown, and that should raise the distinct probability as to the incorrectness'of all the rest of it. He would show that his client could not pos- ' sibly have bsen where he was said to bo on some of the occasions sworn to by tho UOWI witnesses. Only: three witnesses went to the 'l(in»tfi oi ■positively, identifying Cairns. . 411. ttason had sworn'he eaw the two accused .at ■ the Union Steam Ship Company's office corner between 2 'an'd-3 o'clock, and there was tho evidence of Mr Galvin, who eaw the horse and - cart going down Stuart street tp the Reclaimed ground, arid positively identified' Cairns as thero between' 2. and 2.15 p.m. The third w.t, ne'ss who .identified Cairns was Mrs Irvine, wboso evidence was discountenanced by lier whole attitude m the box. Ho could show that Cairns could: not have been on the Reclaimed'ground: >.t the time she swore she hkd seen him there. As to the evidence Mr : Eisoii; bo would show that at 2 o dock-Cairns was in company of'tho assistant, gaol chaplain.' Cairns had been liberated from gaol on tho Saturday, and Mr Axelsen wou " that Cairns visited him first thing on lionaaj morning in order to obtain employment, and ' after leaving Mr Axelsen'n hp went to keep a;i appointment at the' City Refuge; to tho time of his visit there the ladies at the. institution: had no doubt whatever. Alter leaving tho Refuge, where he went by arrangement,' Cairns went to the place where he was living and had lunch, and went up town to keep-an appointment with Mr Axelsen at o'clock,' at Skene's registry office, to see about eettihg work. He was later to go to Mr Axelseh for blankets and train fare to any position lie shouldget. From Skene b office Cairns went xo tho back entranco of the Princess Theatre,'wheVe 'he thought a position might W offered him during the Anderson Dramatic Company's season. Ca-.rns was engagedi there afr'S o'clocky niid worked there tho next two night's, and the men in the yard thero_ who did not know Cairns before woqld say rhatit was about 8 o'clock when Cairns caino into 'the yard. Again,'the method of identification at-'-thfr police station was such as to. lead t° error. The accused were marched -past tho women witnesses by a detective, that there was .an identification could not be wondered

Nevison, ex-matron o! the City Se[a»e deposed that clie knew the accused Cfliina.' Sho saw him on Monday, February 16 between. 10.30 olid 11.30 a.m. at" the Female Bifuge. corner of Forth and St- David streets. • He remained, there at least half;an hour. Tho while visit would ho within the times mentioned.' Miss Wood, tho present matron, also saw hira. She had no doubt about tho time, and had arranged to come and see witness on'"lo'llr Fiaser: It was certainly after 10 ».m; and before 11.80 a.m. It was alter U o'lloclc when Cairns lei',. He arranged to • come, between 9 and U o'clock, and was away iy Emfl°; Wood, matron oMho City Befuge, deposed 'that on ■ Sun Jay, February 15, she eayrthe accused Cairns,'and as a result of _ a conversation' it was arranged ho should ca,U ' tho next day from 9 to 11 a.m.- He called next day; and between 10.30 and 11.30 lie had cdled, had his interview, and gone. Miss Nevuon was also present, She feed the time, because when he had not turned up at 10 o clock she eot rather'uneasy. He came as tfSarly as possible at 10.30. Ho did not seem in the least . CX Edwird.ixelsen, assistant chaplain at Dunedin Gaol, deposed that ho knew the accused Cairns. He saw him on Saturday,_ February li about mid-day. -He nest «w ta ? the Monday between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m.. aj.| his (witness's) own houso. Caims was tliero a few minutes. ,He was . to mee. Cairns at Skeno's labour exchange, in Bond streett, at 2 o'clock or a little later. "Witness and purns net aT Skene's a. few minutes after 2 clock, remaining together a *ew minutes. .< . IcU the office first, h. thought. As result o a conversation held with him then witness met Cairns again ' shortly before 6 p.m., and made .SJements with him to'tow towa next ™To-Mi'Vraaei: He was with Cairns at Skene's five or. ten minutes; ho could iioUay. Edward Ward, labourer, sajd he was m the yard behind the, Princess' Theatre on 3?ehniw? 16' °etting there about 1.30 j?.m. He saw Cairns, there that day. He" had-known him previously.- It was; about five or ten minu es to B'when he saw him there. Subsequently Cairi,rgotwork at thethe a tro for Uvo nighte. Witness-left the yard shortly after Cairns came, and left him there. That night and tho Jiext'night , witness saw him working ftt the . 'mt Frasier:- He was on duty aflfcT .7 o'clock -' Some afternoons he did a bit of work there aleo. 'He had known Cairns for 18 mbpihs, and' had been a companion of his sometimes.' He was not an associate of convicted thieves: that he was aware 0.. Ho did. , not hang about the Aroads with others particularly. Ho fixed the time, as he reckoned • he'hiid been sitting there a good hour andl ahalf before Cairns came up. He went to the yard about 1.30, and it was 8 by the town clock when be came out of the yaw. 4 ' James Henderson, labourer, living m Arthur street.''deposed that on the afternoon of Mon- ' day, February 16, he was in the yard of the - Princess Theatre. Ho s&w Cairns there between 8 and;B.3o o'clo:k. He had only once before worked with him, and had never been . a companion of his. Cairns was present when he got there, and remained there, he thought, about an hour and a-half. . .... . To lb Frasei-. - Ho was st! companion of the last witness, and saw him at tho theatre that • afternoon. "Ward remained there about an hour,alter,witness got there. He knew the time, because he had be'erf down to tho wnart and passed '.be Fountain' at ft Quarter to 8. He was with-Ward at Mr Irwin's office, and ' another nnui-Quan-was there also. Mr Irwin said he had produced all the evidence lie. could, readily. There were two witnesses he had, however,-failed to serve, who would -also 'prove that Cairns was at the ' theatre at 3 o'clock, and he-would ask-for a further adjournment. _ • .. . Mr Fraser submitted that" she limits of adjournment granting for the piirpostlof produclng an alibi had been reached. The last two-witnesses called deliberately ana seriously - contradicted.each other ob,to tune'Jilt-'. Irwin : ; 'lt' shows-there has been no ' combination between theaj. •' •• ; . ; . His Worship: I am not molmed to grant the adjminiineht. You should have been properly P But the witnesses have kept out rf lSs e Wwship'said he declined to grant any ' further adjournments-he would hear what Mr Ilanlon had to say. N t Mr- Hnnlon,. m • addressing. the bench at length; said the' Crown had failed to make out v prima" faoio .case against either of the ac- . rased, and the.matler to be decided had, on the ■ evidonce bf.the Crown witnesses, resolved lteelf into one, of extreme simplicity. Mr Fraser liatl stated that ..-tho.: evidence was composed of a largo jiumber of linkn, but it was, he maintained', absolutely, impossible to' connect these links.. The Crown Prosecutor had laid before ' thc/court a mass of evidence from which it was impossible to draw any satisfactory deduction ; as'to '.fliB) guilt of this, ncoused. In the first ploce, two witnesses had been called who proved that between the Saturday' and Monday ft vehicle and horße were stolon from Or.tram. T'he peraons that stole these had not keen

identified by the losers. In order to show connection of the two accused with the alleged offence the Crown had endeavoured to show that the two accused "were seen in this stolen vehicle in the vicinity of the scene of the offence. But was the bench satisfied that these two men were in the vicinity of the locus in quo on the day in question, and that the evidence adduced by the Crown had reasonably established that the two accused were at any time there on the day in question? ■ Ho submitted that it was impossible to come to the conclusion that the accused were there that day. He proposed to analyse the evidence produced at length; but even supposing after that analysis bis Worship concludcd that tho accused were there' on that day, this did not establish a presumption that these two men committed the alleged offence of assault and robbery, even though they were the men who loitered about thero from 4 a.m. to 3 p.m. If the two accused were intending to commit a crime like this, wbuld they go at 4 in the morning to stand outside tho premises where it was to be committed and remain in view of the neighbours without cessation all that time? ■ Even if they wore there it was not at all reasonable to suppose they were the men that committed the offence. They would not have thus given every facility to identification. They would have known their possession of the cart would bo the strongest-fact in getting them into trouble, and would be liable to lead to their, arrest at any time. There had not even been any assault and robbery proved. A man had been found with a wound on his head—it did not follow that tho man that hit him, if one did hit him, took hiß money. None of 1 the stolen property had been traced to the possession'of tho accused, no bloodstains were on their clothes, they made no stupid admissions; in fact, there was nothing shown, to connect them with the offence. All'the police had'done by thoir exhaustive inquiry was to bring 15 of 20 witnesses, all o£ whom' said the accused "might" bo the men; they saw. Analysing the evidence brought by the Crown, it resolved itself into, nothing more than-this: that at various times-—and none of the times agreed—a number of witnesses testi-' ficd to having seen two men like the accused on the Reclaimed land, none of them would positively swear they were tho same men, and there was also disagreement as to the way they wcro dressed. He admitted there was a suspicion, attached to the accused, but before there could be a committal there should be a strong probable presumption of guilt.! The police had only shown that somo time on this particular day men liko the two accused had been seen on the Reclaimed land. Counsel lo analyse the evidence in detail, pointing out that from contradwtions in the evidence of the witnesses Eason and Porter it was evidently a different cart and horso they had seen. Continuing, ho said there was not a witness whose identification could be relied on in a singlo degree. The police got these women over to the police station awl brought in this man Ramsay, manacled, Moro them; and then when he was among others, they asked, "Do you see the man?" and they «aid " Yob." Mr-Fraser: Mr Hanlon's picture is not borne out'by facts. . Mr Hanlon: It i 3 borne out by evidence. Mr Froser: Not one witness noticed tho condition of thistman. They have said so. I admit these witnesses should not have been in the passage. Mr Hanlon: There were fivo'of them in the passage. Ono lady tells us ,6he saw him go through,to tho yard, and if one saw him go the others must have done so. Continuing his address, Mr Hanlon said that if it was possible that some one else ..than the accused might have committed tho crime, notwithstanding the evidence adduced, then there was no doubt that a prima facie caso had not been made out, and tho case should be dismissed. : His Worship said lie did not purpose commenting much on the case. A great deal of cridenco had been gone through, portion of which was not as strong as one lyould desire in a case of this kind. He had ponb.very carefully through it all, and lie had decided that there was a case to refer to a jury, and would commit the accused for trial. The accused wore then both committed for trial at tho nest criminal sittings of the Supreme Court. On Mr Hanlon's, application, hiul was fixed in each case in two sureties of £100 each. Thomas Ramsay and John Cairns were then further charged with, on February 16, stealing from' Outram, ono gelding, valued at £10, the property of Robert Goodison, and then remanded till Thursday, at 2.15 p.m..