SAVED FROM GALLOWS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19000, 24 October 1923, Page 8

SAVED FROM GALLOWS.

MYSTERY OF A REPRIEVE. WHO KILLED JACOB DICKEY? The Home Secretary has reprieved Alexander Mason, a youthful criminal of 2'2 years, who on July 14 was found guilty at the Old Hailey ot having murdered a taxi driver, Jacob Dickey. There was no extenuating feature about the crime, and while caj, itai punishment is part of ‘he law of die country, no one could be more deserving of death on the gallows than the man who shot Jacob Dickey (writes a London correspondent.). In the light of the Home Secretary's commutation of the death sentence passed on Mason, to imprisonment for life, the question is being asked whether the right man web convicted for this crime. Mason, who gave evidence on his own behalf at his trial, admitted that he was in Baylree road, Bnxton, on the evening ol May 9, when Dickey (was shot. But he declared that the man who fired the shots was James Vivian, a pal of Mason’s, who also has a criminal record. Vivian was the chief witness for the prosecution at Mason’s trial, when the jury returned a verdict of guilty against the prisoner. The Home Secretary has not disclosed his reason for reprieving Mason. But it is well known by those behind the scones the reason is that further investigation into the crime has strengthened the impression that it was not Mason who fired the shots which killed Dickey. Vivian and Mason agreed in their evidence that they had arranged to take a taxi and commit a burglary. Vivian declared in evidence that he became ill through eating sardines, and that he did not leave his rooms on the appointed night. This evidence was supported by a woman of immoral character with whom he was living at the time. It is regarded as significant that this woman fainted under the nervous strain of telling in the witness box the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. She fainted after she gave evidence in the Police Court, and she fainted again at the conclusion of her evidence at the trial at Old Hailey. CONFESSED TO MURDER.

Vivian's evidence was to the effect that after midnight on May 9-10 Mason, who was homeless and penniless, knocked at his windaw, was admitted, and then confessed that lie had murdered a taxi driver. According to Vivian, Mason told him that he got Dickey to drive him to a quiet suburban street, not with the intention of committing a burglary, but for the purpose of robbing the driver, and of killing him if necessary, to overcome his resistance. It seems wildly improbable than any criminal would be so desperate, and so lacking in criminal resource, as to plan the murder of a taxi driver in a suburban street, as the best means of getting money. Such a criminal would have to murder two or three taxi drivers a week in order to provide himself with e modest means of livelihood. Yet the police accepted this improbable story. Vivian admitted in evidence that a goldheaded cane, a pair of gloves, a jemmy, and an electric torch, found in the cab or on the scene of the murder, were his property. And the police accepted his explanation that he had lent them to Mason.

Mason’s story given in evidence was that he was waiting in Laytree road for Vivian, who had arranged to drive out in a taxi, that when the taxi arrived a dispute arose between Dickey and Vivian, and that the lattef shot Dickey. It ie a common practice for London criminals to use taxi cabs for committing burglaries. They drive out to a likely residential quarter, select a suitable house, break in, hurriedly snatch up valuable property, re-enter the cab, and in a few minutes are far from the scene. A successful burglary of this kiffd requires the connivance of the taxi driver, and, of course, he shares'in the proceeds of the robbery. The evidence at the trial of Mason showed that Dickey was not a taxi driver of this kind, but a, man of unblemished reputation. If h© learned when he reached Baytree road what he and his cab were wanted for, it is not unlikely that a very warm dispute arose between, him and the occupant or occupants of his cab. Mason’s evidence that he was not an occupant of the cab, but had been waiting for it in Baytree road, was not supported in any way; the circumstantial evidence indicated that his story was false on that point. But there was evidence from a resident of Baytree road to support the belief that two meri got out of thd cab just before Dickey was shot. MASON’S ESCAPE. ,

Mason, after running from the scene, where the shots had been fired, jumped over a wall into a back garden, and made his way into other back gardens. He was unable to get out, and asked the permission of the occupants of a house to let* him go through the house to the road. He was allowed to do so, and two of the occupants of the house gave, evidence at his trial identifying him. In that way his presence on "the scene of the murder was proved so indisputably that he did not make any attempt to deny it.

Fleet Street journalists whose work brings them into contact with Scotland Yard, know what the police theory is in regard to this crime. There is little doubt that the theory is correct, but it could not have been proved in court, because essential evidence was lacking. The police were not able to obtain evidence which would support a charge against Vivian, but the evidence they brought against Mason was sufficient for a jury to bring in a verdict of guilty. They were able to prove beyond all doubt that Mason was present when the murder was committed. But they could not prove that Vivian's story that he was at home in bod at the time was untrue. But if Mason’s story that Vivian was in Baytrce road also, is true, the question of who shot Dickey is one of doubt. The Home Secretary has reprieved Mason after a jury had found him guilty, and after the Court of Appeal had rejected his appeal that his conviction should he quashed. In other words, the Home Secretary believes, in the light of further investigation, that Mason did not kill Dickey. There is no justification for Mason’s reprieve, except the belief that he was net guilty of this cold-blooded crime. If someone else killed Dickey he cannot, be tried for the crime, because Mason was duly convicted of it.