GUILTY OF MURDER

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 17950, 30 November 1932, Page 10

GUILTY OF MURDER

THE PICTON TRAGEDY DEATH SENTENCE PASSED CONCLUDING STAGE OF TRIAL (Per Press Association.) \ BLENHEIM, last, night, In the Supreme Court to-day, Edward Tarrant was found guilty of the murder at l’icton on November 3, 1931, ot James Flood, and was sentenced to death. An expectant hush ran round the loom at 3.10 when news was gathered that the jury was ready. Counsel began to-take their seats at the table and the jury marched in, while, a few seconds later, the prisoner, rather pale, but still preserving the imperturbability that lias sustained him throughout his ordeal, was led into the dock. “Gentlemen of the jury,” inquired the registrar, “have you agreed upon your verdict? Do you find the prisoner guilty or not guilty?” There was a pregnant pause, while I !u> foreman, after clearing his throat, nervously replied: “Our verdict is one of guilty.” Turning to the prisoner, the registrar addressed him: “Edward Tarrant, prisoner at the bar, you have been found fiuilty of wilful murder. Have you anything to say why the sentenqce of death should not be passed on you.” The prisoner stared blankly ahead of him and made no response. “He has not heard.” said His Honor.

“Read it to him again.” Amid a painful silence the registrar walked right up to the dock and repeated the admonition in a clear voice. The prisoner murmured: “I never did

it.” His Honor then donned the black cap and pronounced sentence of death. The judge, addressing the jury said : “No one has a greater appreciation than 1 of your labors. It will be of satisfaction, perhaps, to know that I fully concur in the verdict you have returned. Each and every one of you will be exempt from further jury service for a period of seven years.’ JUDGE’S SUMMING UP

Summing) up when the court resumed this morning, His Honor said it was just 56 years since there was a capital case in the history of the court in Blenheim, the last murder trial being in 1876. The Crown in this case, he said, had two things to prove. The first was that James Flood was murdered, and the second was that the accused was the murderer. Botli those allegations depended upon what was known, us circumstantial evidence, as no one witnessed tile murder. He was referring to this aspect, because one frequently heard it I stated that circumstantial evidence was 1 not as satisfactory as direct evidence. There were cases where direct evidence was better than circumstantial evidence, ’nut there were cases where circumstantial evidence was bettor than diiect evidence. Taking the first matter, as to whether James Flood was murdered. His Honor said that the circumstantial evidence that he was murdered was overwhelming. The only important matter in tins connection was the question as to the time at which the crime was committed, and it might have an important bearing on other features of the case. The Crown, lie took it, concluded that Flood was murdered round about 9 o clock on • November 3, their reasoning being that, I as the body was found fully dressed, and j the bed had not been slept in, death had I occurred between the hour of 7.40 p.m., ! when Flood was last seen alive, and bis usual bed time, which might be taken, as being about 10.30 p.m. That was i something! to go on, though the defence ' suggested that the old man might have fallen asleep in bis chair, and _ that, therefore, there was nothing to justifiy the belief that death occurred early at I night, as the crime might have been committed at any hour of the night. links IN THE CHAIN It might he inferred, though there was no direct evidence, that on that very night tb© deceased had a wallet in his possession. This inference was rea- ‘ sonabl'e, because there was evidence ! that the old man carried 1 a wallet and, i when the body was found, the Crown, | in effect, said; “We produce to you a i number of strands of truth; some may I bo stronger than others. Some may have little strength, hut we weave them into a cord, and that cord is sufficiently strong to support our case.’ Another way to put it was to compare the Crown’s ease with building a faggot of some weak sticks and some strong ones, Out the whole, when bound ■together,! being sufficiently strong, to support the contention that the accused was guilty. There were, lie thought, eight or nine pieces of evidence which the Crown relied upon, and lie would refer to them ( briefly. The first portioned the Crown’s vase depended on the opportunity the accused had to commit the crime. The Crown suggested that- he had such an opportunity and, while on, this topic, the Crown also said that, when the accused was questioned about this oppor tunitv,. ho made an incorrect statement. The accused was asked what lie was doing about the time of the murder, and, shortly put, the Crown’s case on the evidence of Parslow and Hebley and of some hoys at the Sunday school, was that the accused was about one hour out ill his story of his movements, and it was put hv* the Clown that, during that hour, t here was the opportunity which could have been availed of. The Grown suggested, of course, that the accused had previously mis-stated the position—that was part of the Crown’s case. The Crown, of course, did not say that was the strongest stick in the faggot of proof, and it would be found that some sticks in the faggot wore extremely weak. The next strand was that tiie pocket wbkdi had held it was open and the wallet gone. This established the question of motive for the crime, and it was not disputed by the defence. NO DIRECT EVIDENCE j Proceeding, Mis *Honof reviewed the evidence at some length. He repeated that there was no direct evidence. The Crown’s ease, he said, depended upon the collection of a number of facts or circumstances and, in the Crown’s ease, he proceeded, was the suggestion that the accused suddenly became possessed of money. He had none on November 2, hut on November 4 he had quite a lot. The details in connection with that money had been given, and there was no dispute as to that. Payments totalled £46 and the accused’s explanation was that lie got £l9 19s> 3d from a firm in Blenheim, and] that ho had borrowed 1 £3O from the deceased. 'Lhe Crown said that the accused became flush of funds shortly after the murder.

The accused volunteered to the police on November 8 the information That he had bon owed £3O. The Grown suggested that lie did this for the purpose of getting over a difficulty in which he might find himself through the sudden acquisition o! funds. He gave as a reason for advancing the information that he was a Catholic and could not rest knowing that lie had borrowed £3O from the dead man and had told no one about it. His Honor contrasted this attitude with the loused’s attitude when, according to his own story, lie found the wallet and used the money. Apparently. lie remarked, 1 his religious scruples did not go so far as to preserve him from laying hands on this large sum of money. The Grown also pointed out that the accused was in serious financial difficulties and that it must have been well known in Picton, so that Flood was not likely to lend him money. But the defence pointed to the fact that the, accused had not been sued in the courts : for about two years 'before the murder, j Another factor was in regard to the! accused’s story that he borrowed £3O; from the deceased. There was the evidence of one of the deceased’s nephews J that, at the very time the accused said that he had borrowed the money, _ ho was with the deceased. As against that, of course, the defence claimed that cither the nephew or.the accused was mistaken as to the time. CASHING OF NOTES Coming to the third “strand” of the evidence. His Honor referred to the evidence that on the day after the murder there was a lire producing offensive smoke in the accused’s wash-house, though it was not washing day. That might be a weak strand, but it was added by the Crown to the faggot of evidence it had built up. The fourth set of circumstances dealt with the nature of the injuries received •by llie deceased. He had been dealt a blow on tlie head and then been virtually beheaded, the blows being delivered hv an expert with an axe. The Grown aiso suggested that the accused was an' expert with an axe, and showed that he had demonstrated his skill to a police officer. On the accused’s side it was claimed that Tarrant was not likely to give such a demonstration if he had a guilty conscience. But the police officers gave evidence that (he demonstration was an unconscious one. Coining to the fifth “strand,” His Honor referred to the accused’s inquiries in regard to the purchase of a motor truck which required a deposit of £lO2, The Crown considered that this showed that the accused had money at that date before Christmas. On the other hand. Mr. Parry quite fairly had pointed out that lots of people priced things, though they had no prospect of purchasing them. This evidence did not seem to carry the case far, but it was for the jury to attach to the incident such value as they thought it worth. The cashing by the accused' of 11 £lO notes and five £2O notes 1 was next touched on by His Honor, who pointed out that the Grown showed that tho notes were cashed in Blenheim and not in Picton, though there was a bank in Picton at which they could have been cashed. The Crown also pointed out that these notes were .cashed after tho detectives had left Picton. in February or after the hue and cry had died down. It was suggested. Jhat the accused then thought the coast was clear. Of course, tlie Crown put the most sinister construction upon it. It was for the jury to draw its own inferences from the evidence. duty: of the jury The eighth branch of the Crown’s case, His Honor said, was that, when ho was shown tlie feebleness of liis explanation that lie had .saved the money, tho accused made a further statement, which he still adhered to, that he had found the money. The Crown asked tho jury to reject that statement, and, in addition, offered evidence that prior to the alleged finding of tho wallet, detectives had made an intensive search of every branch and twig, every blade of grass and every fallen leaf, and they said tha.t, if there had been a wallet there, they would have got it. The defence, of course, suggested, in reply to this, that the murderer might have placed the wallet under tho hedge later, perhaps when he learned that the accused’s house had been searched, and he feared that liis also might b,e. Should the jury consider the story of the finding of the wallet unacceptable, there was the significance which was to be attached to tho fact that the accused was in possession of the money, which might bo inferred to be Flood’s money, and the proceeds of a murderous robbery. These. His Honor said, were eight sticks in the Crown’s faggot. Some were weak, some were strong; some might occur to the jury as being capable of more than one inference. If a thing were capable of two inferences, the accused was entitled to have that one adopted which, made for his innocence. His Honor said tho defence was not an affirmative one, but relied upon the alleged weakness of tlie Crown case, as, of course, it was entitled to do. “If you come lo tlie conclusion that there is a reasonable doubt, if you feel in your hearts that the Crown case has not affirmatively; established the accused’s guilt,” lie concluded, “it is your duty to your country and to the accused to bring in a verdict of not guilty, but. if. after due consideration, you come to tho conclusion that, viewed as a whole, the Crown has built up such a case as establishes to your satisfaction that the accused is guilty, it is equally your duty to your country and to yourselves to bring in a verdict of guilty.”

His Honor concluded his address'at 11.30 a.m., and, after one or two points of fact had been discussed between His Honor and counsel, the jury retired at 11.35 a.m.