REX v. FINNERTY AND OTHERS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2672, 31 May 1905, Page 33

REX v. FINNERTY AND OTHERS.

APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OP VENUE. An important application was brought be/ore Mr Justice Wiliams on Thursday morning in tihe Invercargill case of Rex v. Finnerty and others. It may be remembered that on the 27th April two men, named Thomaß Bernard Finnerty and Albert Prentice, were cimmitted by the stipendiary magistrate at Invercargill for trial at the next sittings of the Supreme Court at Invercargill on charges of serious assault on a woman named O'Shaunessey at Invercargill, and that on the 28th April Frederick Rodgers was committed for trial at the same sittings °^ a , cnar S e °& damaging property. It is alleged that before the accused appeared in court, and also on a good many occasions since, there had been comments and letters in the public press expressing strong opinions and exhibiting strong feeling against the accused. The public, it is further alleged, was greatly prejudiced against the accused owing to two other charges laid against them for assaults committed the sams night, and on both of -which, the accused Finnerty was acquitted, while Prentice was convicted on one charge and acquitted on the other MrW Y. H. Hall, solicitor, of Invercargill, in an affidavit, stated : " I believe that public feeling m Invercargill is so adverse to the accused, and that the persons qualified to form juries in Invercargill have been so influenced by articles and correspondence in the newspapers, and by the reports of meetings in which the subject matter of these charges has been discussed or referred to, that it is expedient for the ends of justice that the said aocused persons Finnerty, Prentice, and Rodgers shall not be tried at InvercargHul, but that the place of trial shall be- removed to Dunedin." Mr C. S. Longuet, solicitor, of Invercargill, filed a similar affidavit, and extracts from newspapers relating to the charges against the accufced persons were attached.

Mr Hanlon appeared in support of the motion and Mr Fraser to oppose.

After argument, his Honor refused the application, remarking that in all offences of a serious character public indignation was aroused, but he did not think that because that was so those persons who were empanelled to try the case would be disposed to iind a person guilty if the evidence did not establish his guilt. He instanced Butler's case in Dunedin, where, although great public indignation was aroused on account of the heinousness of the crime, yet it could not be suggested that the man did not get a fair trial, and, as a matter of fact, tho jury acquitted him.