NEW TRIAL ASKED FOR

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 509, 12 November 1928, Page 13

NEW TRIAL ASKED FOR

EX-CONSTABLE’S PLEA PONSONBY SHOP EXPLOSION Contending that there was no evidence before the jury to warrant a conviction, Mr. J. J. Sullivan moved in the Supreme Court this morning for leave to take the case of Thomas Francis Carroll, the ex-constable, who wa_, sentenced on Friday for assisting to burn his shop, to the Court of Appeal, for a new trial. Carroll was found guilty, with another ex-constable, of destroying his grocery store in Napier Street on the night of August 29. Roth were sentenced to three years, with hard labour, to be followed by two years’ reformative detention. Counsel submitted that there was also no evidence that Carroll was insolvent before the fire. The whole evidence against him was very weak and circumstantial, he said. Sullivan traversed the substance of the Crowns case. arguing that mere knowledge that the fire was to take place , was not sufficient to convict Carroll. It must be shown that he assisted in some physical wav to burn the shop. It night well be a coincidence that the shop was destroyed shortly after the removal of £7O worth of stock. Waters, the other ex-constable involved, had the week before purchased £SO worth for the police mess. MOTIVE ESTABLISHED For the Crown, Mr. V. R. Meredith said that if 12 reasonable men had properly drawn the inference of guilt, there should be no leave to appeal! It was difficult to see what other verdict could have been returned. It was not necessary to establish that Carroll was at the fire, or assisted to light it. English law held that anyone who abetted was also guilty. The motive had been established against Carroll. Evidence had shown that his business had declined rapidly. Large quantities of goods had been removed on the very night of the fire. Carroll had later made a false declaration for the purpose of defrauding the insurance company. Mr. Meredith brought up the point that Waters’s statement implicated Carroll. In reply, Mr. Sullivan emphasised that the judge had warned the jury that whatever Waters had said must not be used against Carroll. Counsel alleged that, in fact, the jury had been so influenced. After hearing legal argument, Mr. Justice Smith reserved his decision.