I AM INNOCENT

Southland Times, Issue 18834, 29 May 1920, Page 5

I AM INNOCENT

CRIMINALS ELOQUENT SPEECH. A CHRIFTCH OUCH INCIDENT. “I am innocent.” 'ikc-e were (he final wo!-d=, delivered w'th a due regard for effect, in a most able address given in his own defence by .lame'. Menry Sargeatit irom the dock of the Supreme Corn on Tt’e--;;-;y /-•.■ys the Christchurch Sum. Sa;grant had hern (barged with having stolen a ,-uit of clothes valued at £ll lls° he property of Patrick ncConnick, from the Metropolitan Hold, Manchester street, on February -h. 1h ■ Crown was represented by Mr A. T Donnelly end. the prisoner conducted Ids own defence. ’ The evidence showed that Sarge; ni had been seen by the manager of the hot?!, Mr L. M. Gregory, (blowing parts of a suit nf clothes o'er a Dive that separated the lintel from an adjoining section. Gregory had quest‘oned the man concerning his n~Gons and the latter said he had been staying at the hotel, and, being unable to ; ay hi; board, owing tn povertv. ws "grtt'ng awry.” The man did net know who Gregory wit-. Gvr-i ry had gone into "he hotel to make inquiries concernin'” the nun's Mo-v whott he returned the mm hj d gore. Gregory gave chase and came up

w t’-, S re •••! n • n adjoining street, p rgcant (’pu.ie.d that he was the man want'd rnd refused to return to the hotel o have j investigations made. Then Grege.ry enlisted i •),, n «-etrtr,ncc of a young man, William j Wright rnd a horse and gig were sccur. !, i rn'L after a search, Sargeant was found in a hotel drinking. Efforts were made to induce turn to enter the gig. hut 'bis he refused to do and “bolted.” Then Wright gave chase and hailed the man up with a revolver, after firing a blank cartridge. He w->s then given in charge by Gregory and Wright. Sargeant called no evidence in Ills own behalf, but his address to th’ Jury was dcI livered in a clear voice and showed clearness ■of thought, capacity for argument and a knowledge of how to appeal to the feelings of the Jury. He first made a protest against the action of the lawyers who had been engaged to defend him, but Had thrown up their hr ef; then he averred tha‘ he had served h-”- reentry in France, drew a lecture of the battlefields, of dead comrades -nd per-onrd sufferings. If. added to these things, he told them that he had buried a young wife after having been married only 2fi week:-, the Jury would understand that 'here was some explanation for his actions, if they thought such nefon-• w~r» -bnnrmal, o'-en though he were innocent. He was a stranger in the town and that was the reason why he could not prove an alibi. If the foreman of the jury found himself in 1 r strange town, knowing no one, charged with a serious crime, he would find it most difficult to prove an alibi. A ? ter quoting Bracken’s ‘Not Understood,” Sergeant concluded hi = peroration with the declaration “I em innocent.” i It was of no avail, however. The Grown case against the accused was complete and the jury returned a verdict of guilty. Then it trenspired that Sargeant was an habitual criminal and hod, during his career of crime, suffered long terms of imprisonmeat for arson, house-breaking and theft. His Honor, Mr Justice Herdman, in sentencing the prisoner, said that it was a p : ty that a young man of apparently great ability should choose to live a life of crime. He would only impose a short sentence this time in the hope that when the man was free again he would resolve to live an honest life. Sargeant would be sentenced to one year's imprisonment with hard labour.