PICTON MURDER

Taranaki Daily News, 30 November 1932, Page 9

PICTON MURDER

DEATH SENTENCE PASSED

TARRANT FOUND GUILTY

KILLING OF, JAMES FLOOD

EVIDENCE - CIRCUMSTANTIAL

JUDGE AGREES WITH JURY

By Telegraph.—Press Association.

Blenheim, Last Night.

Sentence of death was passed on Edward. Tarrant by Mr. Justice Blair today. Tarrant was found guilty of the murder of an old man, James Flood, at Picton in November.

-Counsel completed their addresses yesterday, and ,at the request of the jury the Judge postponed his summing up until this morning. The jury retired at 11.30 a.m. and returned this .afternoon with a verdict of guilty. “I never did it,” said Tarrant when the verdict was read to him. The death sentence was then passed. “No one has , a ■ greater appreciation than I of your labours,” said Mr.. Justice Blair to the jury. “It will be some satisfaction, perhaps, to know that I fully concur in the verdict you have returned. Each of you will be exempt from further jury-service for seven years.”

It was just 56 years since there was a ’ capital in the history of the Court in Blenheim, said the judge in summing up. The-last murder trial was in 1876. The Crown in the present case had two things to prove: Was James Flood murdered, and. was Tarrant the murderer. Both of those allegations depended upon what, was known as circumstantial evidence; as no one witnessed the murder. He was referring to this aspect because; one frequently heard it stated that circumstantial evidence was. not as satisfactory as-direct evidence. There were cases where direct evidence was better than circumstantial evidence, but there were cases where circumstantial evidence was better- than direct evidence. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE., ' ?■' ' l' . ' Taking .the'first matter, as to whether James Flood: was murdered, his Honour said the circumstantial evidence that he was murdered was overwhelming. The only important matter in this connection was thie question as to the time at which the:crime was.-committed,, and it might have an important bearing on the other features of the case. The Crown, he took- it, concluded that Flood was murdered round about 9 o’clock on November 3, its reasoning being that aS the body was found fully dressed and the bed not been slept in the death had occurred between 7.40 p.m., when Flood was last seen alive, and his usual bed time, which might be taken as being about 10.39 P-m, That was something to go on, though the defence had suggested that the old man might have fallen asleep in his chair and that therefore there was nothing to justify the belief that the death occurred early at night as the crime might have been committed at any hour of the night. It might be inferred, though there, was no direct evidence, that on that night Flood had a Wallet in his possession. This inference was reasonable because there was'evidence that th? old man carried the wallet. The Crown, in effect, said: "We produce to you a number of strands of truth. Some may be stronger than others; some may have little strength; but we weave them into a cord, and that cord is sufficiently strong to support our case.” Another way to put it was to compare the Crown’s case with the building of a faggot. There were some weak sticks and some strong ones, but the whole when bound together . was sufficiently strong to support the contention that Tarrant was guilty. NINE PIECES OF EVIDENCE. There were, he thought, eight or nine pieces of evidence which the Crown relied upon, and he would refer to them briefly. The first portion of the Crown’s case depended on the opportunity Tarrant had to commit the crime. The Crown suggested that he had such an opportunity, and while on this topic the Crown also said that when Tarrant was questioned about this opportunity he made ,an incorrect statement. Tarrant was asked what he was doing at about the time of the murder, apd, shortly put, the Crown’s case on the evidence of Patslow and Hebley and of some , boys at the Sunday school was that Tarrant was about one hour out in his story of his movements, and it was put by the Crown that during that hour there was the opportunity which could 1 have availed of. The Crown suggested, of course, that Tarrant had purposely misstated the position. That was part of the Crown case; it did not say that was the strongest stick in the faggot of proof, and it would be found, that some sticks in the faggot were extremely weak. The next strand of truth was that the pocket which had held the wallet was open and the wallet was gone. This established the question of motive for the crime, and it was not disputed by the defence. Tile Crown made the suggestion that Tarrant suddenly became possessed of money. He had none on November 2, but on November 4 he had quite a lot. Details in connection with that money had been given, and there was no dispute that the payments totalled £46. Tarrant’s explanation was that he got £l9 19s. 3d. from a firm in’ Blenheim and had borrowed £3O from Flood. This made a total of £5O. The Crown said that Tarrant became flush’ of funds shortly after the murder. TARRANT GIVES INFORMATION. Tarrant volunteered to • the police on November 8 the information that he had borrowed £36.- . The Crown suggested that he did this for the purpose of getting over the difficulty in which he might find himself through the sudden acquisition of funds. He gave as his reason for advancing the information that he was a Catholic and could not rest knowing that he had borrowed £3O from a dead man and had told no one about it. His Honour contrasted this attitude with Tarrant’s attitude when, according to his own story, he found the wallet and used the money. Apparently his religious scruples did not go so far as to preserve him from laying hands on this large sum of money. The Crown also pointed out that Tarrant was in serious financial difficulties and that must have been well known in Picton, so that Flood was not likely to lend him money, but the defence pointed to the fact that Tarrant had not been sued in the Courts for about two years before the murder. Another factor with regard to Tarrant’s story that he borrowed £3O from Flood was the evidence of one _of Flood’s nephews that at the very time Tarrant said he borrowed the money he was with Flood. As against that, of course, the defence claimed that either the nephew or Tarrant was mistaken as to the time. Coming to the third “strand” of evi-

dence His Honour referred to the evi-

dence that on the day after the murder >. there was a fire producing offensive '-. smoke' in Tarrant’s .wash.-ho.use Biough

it was not washing day. That might be a weak strand, but it was added by the Crown to the faggot of evidence. The fourth set of circumstances dealt with the nature of the injuries received by Flood. He had been dealt a blow on the head and had then been virtually beheaded twice, the bloWs being delivered by an expert with an axe.. The Crown also suggested that Tarrant was expert with an axe, and showed that he demonstrated his skill to a police offiOn Tarrant’s side it was claimed that he was not likely to give such a demonstration ■if he had a guilty conscience, but the police officers gave evi-, dence that the demonstration was an unconscious one.

Coming to the fifth "strand” His Honour referred to Tarrant’s inquiries with regard to the purchase of a motor-truck which required a deposit of £lO2. The Crown considered that this showed Tarrant had money at that date (before Christmas). On the other hand, Mr. Parry quite fairly pointed out that lots of people priced things though they had no prospect of purchasing them. This evidence did not seem .to'carry the case far, but it was for the jury to attach to the incident such value as it thought it was worth. . ... .. The cashing by Tarrant of eleven £lO and five £2O notes was - next touched on by His Honour, who pointed out that the Crown showed 1 that the notes were cashed at Blenheim and not at Picton, though there was a. bank at Picton at which they could have been cashed. The Crown also pointed out that these notes were cashed after the detectives had. left Picton in February, or, after, the hue and cry had died down.' It was suggested that Tarrant then thought the coast was clear. Of course fee Crown put the most sinister- construction upon it. It was for the jury to-draw its own inferences from the evidence; EXPLANATION CHANGED. The eighth branch of the Crown’s case,. His Honour said, was that when he was shown the feebleness of the. explanation that he had saved the money Tarrant made a further statement, which he still, adhered to, that he found the money. The Crown asked fee jury to reject that statement; and in addition offered evidence. that prior to the alleged finding of the wallet detectives had made an intensive, search of every branch and twig, every blade of grass and every, fallen leaf, and they said that if there had been a wallet there they would have found it. The defence suggested in reply to this that the murderer might have placed the wallet under the hedge later, perhaps when he learned that Tarrant’s house had been searched and he feared that his own house might be searched. Should the. jury consider the story, of the finding of the wallet unacceptable there was the significance which was to be attached to the . fact that Tarrant was in possession of money which might be inferred to be Flood’s and the proceeds of a murderous robbery. These, His Honour said, were the eight sticks in the Crown’s faggot. Some were weak; some were strong; some might occur to the jury as being capable of more than one inference.

If the thing were capable of two inferences Tarrant was entitled to have that one adopted which made for his innocence. His Honour said the defence was not an affirmative one but relied upon the alleged weakness of the Crown case as, of course, it was entitled to do. “If you come to the conclusion that there is a reasonable doubt;, if you feel in your hearts that the Crown case has not affirmatively established Tarrant’s guilt,” His Honour concluded, “it is your duty to your country and to the accused to bring in a verdict of not guilty, but if after due consideration you come to the conclusion that, viewed as a whole, the Crown has built up such a case as establishes to your satisfaction that the accused is guilty it is equally your duty to your country and yourselves to bring in a verdict of guilty;” His Honour concluded his address, at 11.30 a.m., and after one or two points of fact hdd been discussed between the judge and counsel the jury retired at 11.35 a.m. At 3.10 p.m. the jury returned and a few seconds later the prisoner, rather pale but still preserving the imperturbability that has sustained him throughout his ordeal, was led into the dock. Upon the question from the registrar the prisoner stared blankly ahead of him and made no response. “He has not heard,” said His Honour.” “Read it to him again.” The registrar walked up to the dock and repeated the admonition in a’clear voice. The prisoner murmured, “I never did it.” His Honour then pronounced the sentence of death.