CONVICTION OF WILSON FOR MURDER AT THE BULLER.

Otago Witness, Issue 838, 20 December 1867, Page 15

CONVICTION OF WILSON FOR MURDER AT THE BULLER.

On Tuesday, 19th November, in the Supreme Court at Nelson, before IVlr Justice Richmond, Robert Wilson was accused of murdering James Lennox. The trial lasted two days, and the evidence extended to great length. The chief points in it are contained in the following abstract of the reply from the Nt lso \ Exam iner, of the Crown Prosecutor and the summing up of His Honor the Judge — The Crown Prosecutor contended that the identification of the body and the commission of a murder were clearly proved, through connecting, by successive links of evidence, the prisoner and the murdered man, from the time they had started from Auckland to the time he was seen with Lennox, on Wednesday, the 31st of July. On that day a witness and his mate met prisoner and Lennox half a mile up Deadman's Creek, and were told by them that they were camped a little higher up ; and the time on the following day (Thursday), when prisoner was in the town of Westport without his mate ;he touched on the different stories told by the prisoner — first, that Lennox had gone away -alone to Caledonia Hill, and then that he had gone away with some old mates to the German Lead. Now, why did he tell different stories ? He might have forgotten some small circumstanoes ; but he surely could remember the fact of his mate going away suddenly, as he said he did, and could also recollect accurately whether he went with them. After touching on the 'evidence as to the watertight feoots, he asked, if Lennox left the prisoner, as the latter had declared, how was it that his murdered body was found in the creek, at the very spot where both liad been •camped ? and seeing that Lennox's body had bees found murdered, whccould have murdered it, if not the prisoner, who was last seen with him, and who had been proved io have had possession of many .articles of his property ? He next pointed out the precautions the prisoner 'had taken in ihiding so many articles ; ibut it had happened — as it frequently happens in Buoh cases — notwithstanding all these precautions, there were many things that in thife case were not sufficiently hidden. He noticed the allusion of Mr Pitt to cir•cumstaaatial evidence, and simply said that Judges had frequently told jurors, as no doubt His Honor the Judge would tell them, that circumstantial emdence was sometimes the best evidence that could be adduced. In conclusion, he .asked the jury to weigh the whole evidence, and while giving the prisoner the benefit of any reasonable doubt that might arise, they were not to create a doubt or a difficulty;. The Judge then summed up. He said it "wasaist to be disguised that the case was one which imposed on both Judge and jury a very serious responsibility — serious beyond the responsibility which always attaches in capital cases — snasmuch as this case was of a nature which required -that we collect the proof of guilt — if it is found to be guilt — fre-m many minute circumstances which bear on each •other. Tke evidence demanded from the jury as well as Judge a very serious effort of examination. On the ene hand, neither Judge nor jury would be absolved from censure if tliere was an off-hand acquittal because of any difficulty in estimating the evidence which it was their business carefully to put together and consider. On the other hand, -wherever, in tsae case for the Grown, the evidence leaves open a reasonable doubt of the prisoner's guilt, the jury knew its duty, and would acquit. His Honor then gave what he termed a bi&'d's•eye view of tlie case for the Crown. The Crown insisted, first, that it was dear that the prisoner's mate, James Lennox, Itad been murdered. Jnmes Lennox had been last seen alive in prisoner's company. The body was 'found close £o where tiie prisoner's tent had been pitched; there was blood on the tent which had not been accotinted for; tlie prisoner gave improbable and unreasonable accounts of the departure of Lennox. Articles proved to belong to Lennox were found in possession of the prisoner. He then proceeded to notice the evidence under three heads : first, the ..circumstances attending the finding of the body ; secondly, that which referred to the identification of the body ; and thirdly, and finally, the evidence of those witnesses by which it was attempted on the tart of the Crown to connect the prisoner with the alleged murder of James Xtennox. His Honor then anead the evidence arranged under these three heads, making running comments on certain points that required explanation or joining together. He pointed out that Lennox was last seen alive close by the spot where the body was found. He next adverted to the probability that the murder had been committed on the spot. He believed, the jury would agree with him in thinking that a murderer would not be likely to carry the body of his victim far on

a bush track. Mackenzie .and Huntei thoughtthe body must have beenthrown in to the* creek where it was found. Anothe] reason for believing the murder to have been committed on the spot was that the articles hidden belonging to the murdered man were distributed from, the camp as from a centre. There was s strong case for the Crown that Lennos was ' murdered, and then came the question, Who did it 1 The crime was committed, in all human probability, at the side of the tent. Whose tent ? ■ His Honor proceeded to answer this question by referring to those portions of the evidence -which testified to the prisoner and Lannox being seen half a mile up the creek, on the "Wednesday, without a swag, stating that they were camped a little higher up (the place where the body was found was only about a mile from the mouth of the creek), and that nc camp except that of the witness M'Kenzie, ■"•ho was 500 or 600 yards further down, was near the quarter. The jury were tc consider whether the murder was in theii opinion, according to the evidence, committed on the site of the tent. There was a possibility which appeared that Lennox might possibly have gone away, as the prisoner says, to the Caledonian Hill, anc come back again ; but if he had so gone, he had not taken his boots, his lookingglass, his canvas bags, his red blanket, anc several other things, though ho migW have taken his blankets. He mighi thus have gone away and come back again, and been murdered by some one else. But then Lennox was never seer at the Caledonian Hill, nor on his waj thither. Had he been there, it musi have been known, and could easily be . proved. The nature of wounds, done i with a weapon such as an axe, was noi i such as a bushranger would inflict, bel cause he would not use such a weapon. ' which was difficult to recover if the > assailant warded the blow, but a terrible i weapon to strike at a person totally of i his guard. The wounds would lead om r to the belief that the murder was done i at a camp, and while the victim was «ni suspecting. The next tiling against the I supposition of Lennox having gone to the l Caledonian Lead and retuTning,was the-fad - that blood was on the tent ; this tended tc l show that the deed was done while the i tent was standing. It was for the jurj - to say if' they think so. If they did, ii I bronght the charge very close home tc s the prisoner, because it was scarcely I 1 possible, if the murder wa3 done while s the tent was standing, that the prisoner 3 could have been ignorant of it ; in fact, i1 c could not have been done without his i knowledge. This would make the case f very strong against him as being the , murderer. It was fox ihe jury to considei - whether this was so or not. Tt was -cleai the murder must have been committed or. 1 or after Wednesday, ithe 31st of July. Or c that day Lennox and the prisoner wen! c out of Westport together, with then - swags, and were, on the same day, seen h prospecting together on the creek. Nexi 1 day, the Ist of August, prisoner returned, without his mate, to Westport, having, as he himself said, taken down the tent and articles to the store at the mouth of Deadman's Creek. There were certain other circumstances requiring to be considered by the jury. Prisoner did riot take Barn. well to the place where the tent had been pitched, he brought it down himself to the beach ; and again, if Lennox left, as prisoner said, why should he have left tent, tools, and sundry other common property, including his watertight boots ? The prisoner may have had money before the Thursday, when he had L2O or L3O. It was not proved that he had not. But it should le borne in mind that the Crown is not bound to prove motive for murder. His Honor concluded ty observing that though he had suggested various inferences., it was not his duty tc make them, but the jury's. He had put into something like form a greai mass of materials of great importance, the conclusions from them he was thankful tc say it was not for him to draw, but fo] the jury, whose duty it was to look at the facts in the light of plain, untrained common sense, and from them draw conclusions such as will satisfy their own consciences. It was a grave responsibilitj that rested on the jury ; on the one hanc as a duty owed to the unfortunate man, the prisoner atthe bar— for unfortunate he is, whatever may result from this trial and on the other, as a not less sacred dutj : they owed to society, to find a verdict ac cording to the evidence. He hoped thej : would te guided so as to arrive at a jusl , conclusion, and dismissed them to consider their verdict. The jury then retired, and after ar absence of about an hour, returned £ verdict of Guilty. The Registrar asked the prisoner if he ; had anything to say why sentence oi death should not be passed on him. Prisoner : No ; except that I am inno- , cent of the crime, your Honor. The Judge then put on the black cap, t and addressing the prisoner in a voice . which trembled with emotion, said :—

Prisoner, you have been found guilty of the crime of murder — a, murder so foul and treacherous that one shudders as the circumstances present themselves — a murder committed upon no stranger, hut on ono "who regarded j r ou as a comrade and a friend, on one who was unarmed and unsuspecting. The act was a horrid one ; and we shudder ,to think of the terrible blow by which you took your comrade's life. That was a horrid one, "but its horror is as nothing to the spectacle of a mind like yours, which could conceive and carry out such a deed. The law reserves for you the doom of death — forthat prepare. But as some sign that you look for forgiveness and mercy, I hope you will revoke that false declaration o f innocence — for false I fully believe it to be — as a duty to the community, as well as to your own soul, and as a fit preparation for death. As the mouth-piece of the law of the land, which you have violated, it is my duty to pronounce upon you its last sentence. His Honor then pronounced the sentence of death in the usual form, and the prisoner was removed. He next thanked and discharged the jury, and the Court closed.