ESCAPE FROM CUSTODY.

Taranaki Daily News, 6 May 1926, Page 10

ESCAPE FROM CUSTODY.

THE PARNELL INCIDENT. ’ NOVEL DEFENCE RAISED, THE ACCUSED ACQUITTED, By Telegraph.—Press Association. Auckland, Last Night. At the Supreme Court this morning, before Mr. Justice Herdman, Thomas Smith was charged that on February 23 last, at Auckland, he did escape from lawful custody. Mr. J. J. Sullivan appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. In outlining the Crown’s ease, Mr. S. L. Paterson eaid that evidence would be called to show that accused had been held in custody on a charge of theft. He was handed over to Constable Johnson to be taken by the express to Rotorua, to be tried there. Detective Hammond joined the party at the Auckland railway station. When the express reached the Parnell tunnel the accused made a request to go to the lavatory and was accompanied by Constable Johnson. The accused suddenly slammed the door, locked it, broke a window and jumped out. He was subsequently arrested at Pokeno.

Proceeding, Mr, Paterson said that he wished the jurymen to keep out of their minds something they might have read about the case. Mr. Sullivan: No mention should be made of it. His Honour: It should not be mentioned at all. Evidence was given by Constable Johnson and Senior Detective Hammond. The latter said that when Smith broke the lavatory window he (witness) looked out of another window just in time to see Smith leap towards the wall o'f the tunnel and fall on bis face. Witness considered that he would have broken his neck if he had attempted to jump after him. On reaching Newmarket, a search for the accused was immediately instituted. Before leaving Auckland witness explained to Constable Johnson that a charge of theft of benzine was to be preferred against the accused. Mr. Sullivan: The theft charge was dismissed at Rotorua? Witness: Yess. Mr. Sullivan said the defence would bo that the accused was not held in lawful custody, and a crime had to be in the code before it could be punished, B. P. Cahill, solicitor, gave evidence that the theft charge against Smith at Rotorua was dismissed. To Mr. Paterson: Another charge was preferred against the accused. Mr. Sullivan: That is not relevant. In reply to further questions-by Mr. Patereon, witness said that the second charge was one of vagrancy. Mr. Sullivan asked that his objection should be noted. Addressing the jury, Mr. Sullivan contended that Smith was held on a warrant requiring him to be held in the Auckland prison until February 24, and therefore be could not be charged with escaping from legal custody in the Parnell tunnel on February 23. It was impossible to get away from the document. His Honour, in addressing -the jury, said it was a case of extreme simplicity. A warrant was signed by Mr. Poynton, S.M., directing that the accused should be conveyed to the Auckland prison, and further instructing the gaoler to have the accused at Itotorua on February 24. He directed the jury that Smith was in lawful custody at the time of his escape. The warrant was sufficient for the gaol authorities to hand Smith over on February 23. The further defence raised, that Smith had been acquitted at Rotorua, could not be extended to the accused. After two hours’ deliberation the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.