THE FINDLAY:CASE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13888, 27 April 1907, Page 10

THE FINDLAY:CASE.

CONVICTION FOR BURGLARY

UPHELD,

(Per United Pkess Association.)

"WELLINGTON, April 26. The Appeal Court gave judgment to-day in the case of Rex v. Finutay—an application for a new trial, i'indiay had 'bivn convicted on a. charge of burglary and theft at the residence of llie hue .\'fr YV. 11. Reunie, schoolmaster at. l'apuhio (who was found mumered), and was sentenced lo live years' imprisonment, and was declared an habitual criminal.

Air Justice Cooper, wlio delivered tha judgment of the court, said that the oas-e lor the Crown depended on circuiiKlantul evidence, the cumulative effect ot which was to shift (he onus of proof on to tho prisoner, and the prisoner offered no evidence to rebut the circumstantial evidence. CJjrcuinstuiitial evidence might he compared with a rope made up of many weak strands, do one of which would b<j sufficient lo stand a strain, but the combined effect o£ which would lie unbreakable. Each separate fact of the circumstantial evidence standing alone might bo of little weight, but, taken in conjunction with all the other facts, it might create sufficient, evidence, it not rebutted, to justify a jury in finding a verdict _of guilty. Where a jury on such evidence had convicted a, prisoner the onus was on the prisoner lo show the court that no jury could reasonably have arrived at that verdict. This onus, in the opinion of the court, hail not been discharged. The circumstances of the case might Ik classified under seven heads :-(l) Tito conduct and movements of the prisoner shortly prior to and on October 1 and up to the time lie was last seen 011 October 2; (2) the burglary and murder and the presumed time of the murder; (3) the prisoner's statements on and after October 3; (4) the meeting of the witness Millen on the night of Oolol.vr 3 with a. person in possession of a bicycle, claimed by the Crown to be Findlay, with Heunic's bicycle; (5) the finding of it va/.or like Ronnie's in Tomlinson's paddock, where JTindlay had been working the day after the murder; (0) the finding of Ramie's bicycle in the Waitaki Eiver near tho place where Findlay was working; (7) tho pecuniary position of tho prkoner shortly before and shortly after the murder. His Honor then went through the evidence, tracing the conduct and movements of tho prisoner up to October 2, when he was Jast eosn, about 3.30 in tho afternoon, not. far from Ronnie's house. Burlier (hut afternoon he had called at Itcnnio's house, and had told a Miss Johnston, a. day servant there, that ho was canvassing for a bakery, and had asked how many people were in the house. He had alio made untrue statements to several persons whom he had met on' tho road that ho was a runaway sailor off the steamer Port Stephens. He whs not, seen again by any witness until the morning after the murder, when he was seen by Tomlinson at Tomlinson's house, where he had been staying. He told Tomlinson that he had been canvassing for abatorv&tnd had had tea in Tanscy'd boarding-houso in Oamaru, and after tea had walked out, arriving at Tomlinson's about 1.30 a.m. This statement was untrue, for he had not been at Oamaru that night. Under tho sccopd head his Honor referred to photographs that had been found in Ronnie's room, and stated that it had. been put forward by {he defence that tho motive of the miirder might have been revenge for some offence committed by Ronnie. This defence, however, in a. scattered country district, where the movements of almost all inhobitants were woll known, could have 110 woight. As to the prisoner's statements after tho offence, besides the untrue statements made to Tomlinson before tho murder had been discovered, just prior to his arrest on October 10, he told the detaetiyo who arrested him that he had never said'that- he was a runaway sailor, and that Jie had never been fit Kennies liouso on the afternoon of rOctober 2. He said that ho had been at Oamaru on the night of October 2, that he had had tea at Keev's refreshment rooms, and had slept all night at Tstnsey's boarding-house, leaving there about 9 a-m. 011 October 3. This statement was not only untrue, but was inconsistent with a previous untrue statement he had made to Tomlinson. Tho evidence under the first and second heads alone might not have, been sufficient to warrant a jury finding the prisoner guilty, but. couplrd'with the evidence under the third head, it, was sufficient. It was an attempt on the part of the prisoner to set up an alibi,' which had been proved to be false. T'liis aione was ot great woight against the prisoner, and was almost sufficient alone to justify a conviction. His Honor, after discussing tlie other heads of the evidence against ihc prisoner, came teethe conclusion that (here was evidence justifying the jury in coming to the conclusion that the prisoner had dropped the razor where it was Found, ami that it was Rcnnio's razor. There was some evidence that the prisoner was tho man seen by the Millens on Uie night of October 3 with a bicycle, and that he threw it into tho Waitaki River to escape defection. Upon tho whole of the evidence there was ample to justify tho verdict of tho jury.

Mr Justice Williams stated that as ho waa the judge who tried the prisoner on the charge of burglary, while concurriii' r Willi the judgment, would like to add a few words. His Honor said ho was clearly of opinion that any other verdict on the part of the jury would, have been improper. A new trial was refused.

The court said that tho importance of tno case consisted in .the fact (hat tho prisoner's conviction upon the indictment of burglary necessarily meant, that, though by his acquittal on the charge of murder lie had cscapcd the punishment of murder, he was the murderer of ltennie. The case presented to tho jury was much stronger than tho case proscniod on I lie chargc o{ murder, there being- additional cvidcnce in three important respect*. None of that materia! wsus before tho jury which tried the murder ease.