The Petone Murder Cases.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 8776, 11 March 1897, Page 3

The Petone Murder Cases.

We take the following report of MiJustice Edwards’ address to the Grand Jury, with reference to the Petone murder cases, from The Netv Zealand Times of March 9th : The most serious case was that in which Stephen Bosher was charged with the murder of Mr Jones and his wife at Petone, under circumstances which no doubt they had all heard somethingabout. The evidence in this case, as in nearly all cases of murder, was clearly of a circumstantial character, and it would be for them to consider whether the facts were such that twelve reasonable men could say that they considered them inconsistent with the prisoner’s innocence. He did not say that it was for them to try the case, or to come to a conclusion whether the prisoner was guilty or innocent, but if they found they had a case for him to answer they must file a true bill. If on the other hand, they thought the man was innocent they ought to ignore the bill. It could not answer any good pur pose if when the bill was pivsent.d to the common jury it could not Le sustained by evidence. The better course under such circumstances would be for them to ignore the bill, and if at any time further evidence could be procured the prisoner could again be put upon his trial. If, however, they filed a true bill which the petty jury could not sustain, however conclusive the evidence afterwards collected, he could not be retried. Of course in many cases a prisoner was sent before a Grand Jury, even when a case was weak, simply because if he were not at once tried he might evade his trial at any other time. That did not apply to this case, because the prisoner was already in gaol serving a sentence for bigamy, and he must remain there for some time. If no bill were filed now and further evidence was subsequently discovered, he could be put upon his trial at a later period. The facts which apparently were relied upon against the prisoner were that he was unquestionably about there, that it was possible for him to have committed the murder, that there was a footprint in the ground said to correspond with a boot found in his possession and admittedly his ; and, further, that he made some attempts to conceal a knife with which it was suggested the deed might have been committed. There were a very great many witnesses indeed, but they did not appear to carry the matter any further than that it was possible for him to have committed the murder. No doubt there was some evidence showing a consciousness of guilt, but in his (Mr Justice Edwards’) opinion such evidence in a matter of this sort was not of very great weight. It might even have been attributable to the personal peculiarities of the prisoner, who was an excitable man, and one of an excitable race. It was natural that anybody should be agitated under the circumstances. He (the Judge) would no doubt have felt very agitated himself, if he had heard that two persons whom he had known to have lived an upright, sober and righteous life had been suddenly murdered in their own home in such a manner. The jury had to come to a conclusion as to whether as twelve reasonable men having respect for their oath, they could say that the man was innocent. If they came to the conclusion that the circumstances were consistent with the innocence and not guilt of the prisoner, it could do no harm, and certainly might do good.