Lawyer Exonerated on Grave Charge

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 726, 27 July 1929, Page 8

Lawyer Exonerated on Grave Charge

JUSTICE NOT PERVERTED . AN UNRELIABLE WITNESS (Bpeciai to THE BUS) CHRISTCHURCH, Friday. The prosecution of the wellIcnown lawyer, Charles Stewart Thomas, on charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice in recent Supreme Court proceedings that arose from a fatal motor accident near the clock tower, ended in the dismissal of the case, counsel for Thomas pointing out that the evidence of one of the police witnesses was that of “a liar” and a more-or-less drunken man. The charge against Frank Brear Clark was also dismissed. Chief-Detective Carroll conducted tne case for the police and Mr. A. C. Hanlon, of Dunedin, appeared for Jhe defence with Mr. M. J. Gresson. After the hearing, which lasted until late in the afternoon, the magistrate, Mr. E. C. Dewey, dismissed the information. Mr. Hanion. counsel for Thomas, cross-examined James MePhee, miner, of Taylorville, near Brunner, at considerable length regarding his interview with the police and his discussion with Mr. Mitchell and the other witness Gordon. Witness stated that he had changed his evidence and sworn in the Supreme Court that the Car was going 45 miles an hour because he was disgusted with Thomas land Clark. Jameß Wilson Gordon, miner, of Dobson, said he also witnessed the accident. When Mr. Thomas discussed The case with him and the previous witness on their arrival in Christchurch, witness had said that as far as he was concerned he was going to stick to the statement he had made to the police. Thomas asked him to modify his evidence. “FF.W DRINKS IN” The Magistrate: Can you not remember anything else that happened in the car? Gordon: Well, I had a few drinks in, your Worship, and I was not paying much attention. Witness continued that he heard Mr. Thomas tell MePhee that he would ■send Clark to the hotel in the morning. Witness did not go to Mr. Thomas's office. The first occasion MePhee had spoken to him about anything Mr. Thomas haid said was on The Coast. MePhee did not tell him how “disgusted” he was with Mr. Thomas. MePhee had never made any statement to him about staying behind and making a statement to the police. Witness had been to Mitchell’s house with MePhee after The Supreme Court proceedings, but There was no conversation about the case, except that it was finished with. DETECTIVE’S EVIDENCE

Detective-Sergeant Young gave evidence as to interviewing accused on June 24. Thomas appeared to know the reason of the visit, and asked what The position was. Witness told him That it was in regard to allegations made by MePhee and witness asked him if he desired to hear the police statement. Mr. Thomas said he would like to hear it, and witness read it out. Mr. Thomas said it was remarkable how a matter like that could he distorted. He also said he picked the kind of man MePhee was in the car, and he had had difficulty in getting rid of him. He made a denial of the allegations and said he was quite prepared to give any statements in regard to the matter. Witness said he had a number of Questions written out to ask Mr. •Thomas, and he read them to him. Mr. Thomas gave verbal answers and then .arranged for his shorthandtypist to come in. The questions were again read over and with the answers taken down by the typist. To Mr. Hanlon: Witness said that fee had no idea who took the statement from MePhee. If the statement fe'as made at the police station wit£ieas would know it. Mr. Hanlon: That is a somewhat perplexing statement, because he said that he had given it to you, and when fee said that he looked at vou, nodding feis head. Is there another Detective JToung? Witness: No. Counsel: This must have been a fetatement made by MePhee to somebody outside the police force and was then brought to you? Witness: Apparently that is whjt it ;was.

Addressing the court, Mr. Hanlon said: "I feel vary keenly that a grave Injustice has been done to Mr. Thomas in having this charge launched against him on the evidence of one more or less drunken man, and that man a cunning liar. I would have addressed you and pointed out my reasons for saying that MePhee was a cunning liar, but the evidence of the last witness must show that MePhee told a wickediy cunning lie and wa.s prepared to lie even when he knew the police would contradict him. Your Worship must be confident that the evidence is so wickedly unjust that I ask you now to make an immediate dismissal of the case and so relieve Mr. Thomas’s mind of this charge. “If ever a venomous prosecution feas been launched against a professional man this is one,” continued Mr. Harlem, "and I ask you to dismiss the case without going into these discrepancies, because they must still be fresh in your Worship’s mind.” The Chief-Detective: There is one tiling I notice in the cross-examina-tion, and that is that the main part of the evidence has not been attacked at ell- It remains unshaken. The magistrate said he was not prepared to send the accused for trial and he was not satisfied with the evidence of MePhee. Gordon’s evidence was of no value at all. Accused might prefer to take the matter to a higher court but he was prepared for his part %o throw the case out. The case was accordingly disJnissed.

A similar charge was made against Frank Brear Clark, the father of the young man who drove the car. The magistrate said the position in this matter was complicated by the allegation of an offer of money. He felt that was the very remotest possibility of any jurity convicting and he thought the wisest thing to do would be to dismiss the information.