THE SPRINGSTON AFFAIR.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16572, 3 November 1921, Page 8

THE SPRINGSTON AFFAIR.

MAIN’S SIDE OF THE CASE. A PLEA OF SELF-DEFENCE. The Spvingston shooting case was continued at the Supreme Court today, before Mr Justice Adams. James Scott. Main was charged with having, on September 14, discharged a revolver with intent to disable Anthony Bartholomew M’Evedy and Bernard Nuttall. There were further charges of wounding, of attempting to murder M Evedy and Nuttall, and of assault ng them. Main’s plea was not guilty. Mr A. I’. Donnelly, Crown Prosecutor,, conducted the case for the Crown. Mr M. J. Gresson, with him Mr C. S. Thomas, appealed for the accused. IS IT MURDER? Constable A. Smithers gave evidence of having gone to the Springston Hotel after the affray and obtained statements from those present. He said he then went to the Selwyn Huts, and found Main standing in tho doorway of liis residence. Witness said, “ What on earth have you been doing, Ted?” Main said, “ O , Smithers, the have been' trying to rob me.” Main said, “Is it murder?” and witness said, “ No, attempted murder.” Main denied having been drinking, and pointing.to his collar and tie hanging on a. nail said, “ Would I have hung those there if I had been drunk?” He pulled some notes o-ut of his trousers pocket, and said, “ I had these in my coat pocket, and when 1 woke up I found them here.” On his way to the police station Main’s chief anxiety was whether witness was telling the truth regarding the wounded man. Main said he was sorry it was M’Evedy who had been shot. Main appeared to bo suffering from the after effects of drink. He was badly marked on the face. To Mr Gresson: Main had received a severe blow behind the ear. His and knee were injured. Generali v speaking, he was badly knocked about. Do you remember if it was you who told Main that M’Evedy was shot?—He appeared to have an idea it was M’Evedy, but 1 cannot say whether or not it was T who told him. Tho certificate of registration of Main’s revolver was produced. W itness said it was stipulated that the weapon was kept for defencoDetective Sergeant A. G. Quartermain gave formal evidence. Two other witnesses not being available at the moment, it was agreed that the case should proceed, an*! their evidence he taken later. The case for the Crown was closed except for these witnesses. MAIN’S DEFENCE. Addressing tho jury, Mr Thomas said that the case was a most extraordinary one. He doubted if the Court had ever heard u more contradictory case. It simply teemed with contradictions and impossibilities. Hp asked the jury to keep their minds open for the side of the accused, now to be presented. Accused was very lucky that Johnston happened to be sleeping in the room above the passage, because the whole of the fracas would have appeared- an unprovoked assault without his evidence. As it was, Johnston’9 story showed Nuttall to be the aggressor—that bo wu« waiting to “ have it out with this Scotch —.” Main was the victim of a “ plant.” Main went from Selwyn on September 14, arriving at the Springston Hotel at 4 p.m. - He had had an addition to the family and was elated at it. It was up to him to shout, and he did. Withers shouted next, then Mrs Harris gave him tea. After tea he* went down to the Selwyn on his motor bicycle, attended to some boats there, and then return ed to the hotel about twenty minutes to six. He met a hotel rouseabout and had a drink with him. Next he had tea with the hotel people. After that he sat smoking and yarning with them. Withers went out of the room, and later Main walked out and down the passage. Withers told him the M’Evedys were there. “YOU’VE GOT TO GO OUT.” Entering the room containing Nuttall’s party, Main lay down on a couch. Nuttall told him to get out, but Main said “ This i 9 the commercial room, isn’t it? ” Nuttall retorted, “ Yes, but we’ve got the room for the night, and you’ve got to go out.” Main refused, and Nuttall threatened to evict him. The women interposed, and Mrs Harris appearing, he responded to her request to come out. Mrs Harris conducted Main to a bedroom, but Main did not want to sleep there, wanting to go back to the huts. Mrs Harris said, “I think you’d better,” and slammed the door. Main got out of the .bedroom, and went downstairs, where he talked to Withers. Nuttall said “ Oh, you’re Scotty Main, are you? What’s the price of swan’s eggs.” M’Evedy evidently thought it a joke. M’Evedy said “ What about a pair of ducks? ” It was out of season. Main said “ You get them from your "brother.” There was justice in that reply. Main then walked out of the hotel, and came round the side of the house. MAIN IN THE SHADOW. In the shadow he saw a man walking behind him. This man said, “ Wait till 1 get this Scotch One of the women said “ Come away, I%d. Get into the car.” Main had been a ranger for a number of years. On two or three occasions he had been the victim of brutal assaults. Once he received a charge of buckshot from a poacher. At another time he was “laid out” by a blow from behind and would carry the scar for tlie rest of his life. Thus when he heard tho insult lie suspected another assault. Ho determined not to let this man get away. He went to the back of the car to get the number, but was confronted by Gibbs and Nuttall. He produced his revolver to defend himself. He told them to get back. Going round to the front of the car he heard a rattle which sounded like Gibbs getting at his toolbox. Fearing a blow from a spanner, he kicked in the headlight, then backed towaid tho hotel facing his adversaries. A BLOW ON THE HEAD. Witness told him to put the gun down. A man, evidently M’Evedy. distracted his attention, and witness sprang at Main. Then the struggle started. The only thing Main had the gun for was his own protection. The | next thing Main experienced was a heavy blow on the back of his head. He only half remembered what happened after that. He remembered . tugging his revolver, and ho thought he had shot himself, because of the position he was in. His throat was injured. When he got away he rested awhile, then rode to the huts. ACCUSED GIVES EVIDENCE. James Scott Main, the accused, said he was ranger for the Canterbury Acclimatisation Society. He was over forty years of age. He said he got a license to carry a revolver because of tlie assault by a poacher which had rendered him insensible and deafened - him for months. At tho hotel on September 11 Mrs Harris said, “Hello.

f Scotty, how’s things going?” Witness j said, “ All right.” Mrs Harris said, “How’s the missus and family?” Witness replied, “ All right. We’ve just ; had an addition.” Mrs Harris replied, “ By Jove, you’ll have to shout for that.” Witness complied, then Withers shouted. Next Mrs Harris shouted. Witness continued on the lines of Mr Thomas’s opening. He said he had tea in the kitchen in the Springston Hotel because of the jests and taunts which were sometimes made to him owing to his position a» ranger. In the commercial room (in Main’s words). “ Nuttall said, * Go oot or I’ll put ye oot.’ 1 swung round on the couch and said, ‘ Tlie whole d lot of ye couldn't put me oot!’ ” To a girl who was advancing to him he said, “ -You get away, painted face.” When Mrs Harris called him out, witness thought she was going to take him into a private sitting-room and tell him somethincr about the people in the commercial room. Instead of that she led him to a bedroom, and shut the door on him. After he said in reply to Withers, “ I’ve got as much business in the commercial room as anv other man. Why should I be chucked out on the back of my neck?” Withers said, “Quite right, too. Come and have a drink.” At the bar witness saw tho M’Evedys. Witness yarned with Withers. They shouted each other, one each, witness drinking beer. Those were the first drinks since tea time. Suddenly the eldest M’Evedy said, “ Hello, are you Scotty Main?” Witness said “ Yos.” “ Aye,” he said. “ but are you the ranger?” Witness said, “ Yes.” He said. “ I see you’ve been having some fun with the swan eggs.” Witness said, “Yes; what about it?” “Oh.” said M’Evedy, “ I thought I might get a few dozen.” Witness said. “ M’Evedy. if you want swan eggs you’d better get them off the society. They have the selling rights of them.” I.Z’Evedv then said, “ Well, if you won’t get swan eggs, what about getting us a pair of ducks?” Witness said, “I ean’t get von ducks. Get them from your brother. He gets them out of season.” The brother had been'' prosecuted for getting ducks out of season. M’Evedy started to “ jump round.” and witness said to Withers, “ I think I’d better be going, Fred.” Withers said, Yes, I think so.” Witness then went out to the back of the hotel. When lie came round tho hotel he saw a man standing in the middle of the road. He said “Here’s this Scotch b .” Witness walked along, and this man followed. A woman cried, “ Come along. Ted, for God’s sake.” Tlie man said “No fear, I’m going to have it out with this Scotch .” Withers said, “ Oh, that’s the game, is it? I’d better take your car number.” Nuttall was going to resist the car number being taken, but witness produced his revolver and said, “You keep back, I’m going to take this number.” Then the young M’Eved|y came to have a look, and witness thought he and the other “ crowd ” were all together. Witness kept Nuttall and M’Evedy back, and tried to memorise the car number by saying it over three times to himself. He had- no time to write it down. He looked to see if there were any swan eggs in the car, but there was nothing of the kind there. While witness was looking to the back part of the car Gibbs started to rattle something and put on the lights. Witness kicked in a headlight, and said, “ You’re not going to blind me, you —- Withers said “For ’s sake, Scotty, put that thing away.” Witness said “You stand back, Fred. You’re all right. But I’m going to watch the car crowd.” Witness had backed about half a dozen yards across the road when the oddest M’Evedy said “ Come on, boys, and take the thing from him.” Witness said ‘ 1 Yon stand back or I’ll shoot.” M’Evedy said “ It’s not loaded- Come on, boys.” Witness said “It’s always loaded.” Next Withers sprang at him, and he received a severe blow by the ear which made him feel very giddy. “ All the time,” said witness, “ I was fighting to try and get away. Suddenly someone kicked me on the knee arid 1 fell, with men on top of me.” When he fell he was lying on his face with his hand across his chest and the revolver pointing over his left shoulder. Someone had hold of its muzle and someone had hold of his elbow. He was quite conscious of what was going.on. With his hand in this position the gun went off. Witness thought he was shot himself. Someone then pulled his arm from under his chest, and smashed his thumb with something hard. Witness was kicked on his right shoulder, and someone tried to throttle him, and then to crush him to the ground. For some weeks after witness was able to swallow only soft food. His knee was ho stiff he" could hardly walk. His ear bled, and his thumb was not yet right. “ When I came to my senses,” said witness, “ I was sort of reeling. Every thing was hazy and dense. I walked toward my bike, but didn’t get as far. I sat down to rest myself.” Witness recovered, and then mounted his bicycle and rode away. He remembered nothing about a coat. After arriving at h s hut he undressed and went to bed. He could not sleep for the pains in his body. At about 4 a.m. be heard a motor-bicycle come along, and went to the front door. It was then that Constable Swithers arrived. Mr Gresson: Are you a good shot with a revolver? —Yes, a very good shot. During the time outside the hotel, could you have missed them if you had wanted to shoot them?—l could have got the lot of them. Did you fire the revolver intending to hit anyone? “ Never,” said with emphasis. What were you trying to do when you backed ?—I was trying to get back into the hotel. I would have got there except for Withers seizing me. Mr Donnelly: Have you ever drawn the revolver before this incident?—No. The society knew all the time that yr*i had the"revolver?—l should think Did you know it was a breach of the law to take the weapon out of the house with you?—No. Mr Gresson: Is that so? Mr Donnelly : Yes. Mr Gresson : Well I did not know it. Has any member of the committee of the Acclimatisation Society seen you in possession of this weapon since the Arms Act came into operation?—l don’t think so. How many drinks did you have during the afternoon?—At the most, six. Had the liquor affected your judgment?—None whatever. The abusive language toward the women which they allege you uttered was not used ?—lt was not. Do you ccnsider you were entitled to search for s.van eggs at the point of the pistol?—l was using it for another purpose. But you consider yourself right in searching as you did.—Yes. You consider you were entitled to get the number of tlie car by pointing the pistol ? —Yes. _ Why did Withers jump on youP—Because ho didn’t understand tho situation. What made vou retreat towards the hotel, pointing your pistol?—l thought I was going to get a mauling again. Do you say that although you were armed with a loaded revolver it was impossible for you to get away without trouble P —Yes. You consider you had a right to hold

these people up for a quarter of an hour?—-It was only about ten minutes j from the time I came round from the i back of the hotel until I rode away. i You consider you had a right to use j the revolver as you did?—Yes, in view « of my previous experience. Were you continuously using threeitening or abusive language ? - No. ; Why didn’t you take Withers’s ad- i vice to put the revolver away?—'With-! ern didn’t know the situation You don’t remember firing thoee two ; shots before you fell on the ground? - j No: I was in a dazed condition. j Did you see M’Evedy lying wound**!? j —No. I did not. When Constable Smithers came, you 1 said thev had been trying to rob you. : That wasn’t correct, was it?—l had ; lost a knife and a few shillings. Nothing had happened to suggest that these people were trying to rob j you?—lt was quite possible for them • to do it when I wan on the ground. j Do you think that a reasonable ; thing?—T wouldn’t have been surprised j at anything after wliat took place out- ; side the hotel. When Constable Smithers told you ; you had shot M’Evedy. that was the j first you heard of it?—Yes. | Mr Gresson: Were you aware you j were unauthorised to carry tlie revol- j ver?—No; 1 always thought after re- j reiving the letter from the Minister of ! Internal Aff*'jirs that I had the right. Mr Donnelly said that lie did not now propose to call the two other Crown witnesses, the O’Neills, as it had been agreed to dispense with their evidence. Main’s was the only evidence called for the defence. THE FINAL) ADDRESSES. Mr Gresson, addressing the jury, said that accused was liable to any term of imprisonment up to life if con victed of the charge of attempted murder. He mentioned that to show the big responsibility resting upon all concerned. At some length Mr Gres son addressed the jury upon their duties, stressing the point that the .jury and the jury alone must decide as to the guilt or innocence of ac cused. It was a fatal mistake to assume that the judge directed their verdict. They must give the greatest weight to his Honour’s summing up, but if their independent conclusions did not agree with his, tlieir plain duty was to disagree with his Honor. Going into tlie merits of the case. Mr Gresson said that if it were not proved that Main fired the revolver with intent he should be held not guilty. A man was entitled to use a pistol if lie were in danger of serious bodily harm, and had retreated as far as possible before shooting. The provision, contained in Halsbury, might have been written to meet Main’s case. The Crown had to prove that Main fired the revolver with deliberate intent to injure the man shot This, he submitted, was impossible on the evidence given. M’Evedy’s story ot Main’s alleged unprovoked assault was absurd on the face of it. M’Evedy said he was sober, but Dr Cook’s evidence as to M’Evedy’s. sobriety must be given due weight. M’Evedy’s evidence was not Supported by a single other witness in the case. As to Nuttall’s party tlie jury could see that he was of an aggressive type. It was quite r.ossible, having regard to either Nuttall’s or Main’s story, that Nuttall received cause of offence, and became the aggressor. It was plain even on Nuttall’s evidence that Main’s wrist was held during the firing of the second shot, and it was a reasonably conclusion that at least the second and last shots were fired as the result of the struggle. The case for the defence was that there was a struggle before the first shot. None of the Crown witnesses except M’Evedy—whose evidence they could not hang a dog on—could give positive evidence as to this. A theory which might account for the shooting was that contained in Dr Armagh’s evidence. It was probable that M’Evedy w r as standing sideways to Main. Assuming that as Main was backing someone grabbed his wrist, the natural thin" would be for the revol ver to dip and thus inflict a downward wound such as M’Evedy received. Such a shot could only come as the result of the struggle. ? ‘‘ With all sincerity, as representing prisoner, I say ‘ thank God for Johnston. * If it had not been for Johnston the case .would have been presented to them in a very different light. Johnston, a reliable independent witness, gave the only evidence which could not be impeached. After hearing Johnston’s evidence, could they doubt that Main drew the revolver in selfdefence ? He could not stress too much tho importance of Johnston’s evidence. Mr Gresson alleged that the Nuttall and M’Evedy parties had united to give the evidence placed before them It was Johnston’s evidence that burst up the “plant” he said. There was no suggestion that Main wanted to shoot M’Evedy. There was no evidence of any motive for shooting. At any moment during the ten minutes or quarter of an hour that the incidents outside the hotel were occurring Main might have shot. It was only when Main was defending himself, getting back to the hotel, that tho shots were fired. That ended the case, if the jury accepted the position. Main must be acquitted. The Crown’s theory was that Main was mad drunk, and it utterly failed, because of the fact that, despite the injuries the man received, he got on his raotor-bicycle and rode to the Selwyn Huts, three miles away. Then, again, Main’s action in kicking the motor-car light out when fearing assault was a perfectly sane one, and a really clever strategic move. It might be said that it was unwise of Main to draw die revolver. But let them consider the trouble that Main had had from poachers. It had been suggested that he should not have drawn the revolver because he had no right to carry it under the Arms Act. That might be law, but not sense. The man was assumed to know the law, but in fact did not. Main, coming round from tho back of the hotel, found that the two parties he saw separated in the hotel mysteriouslv united, and something being said about “ Getting that Scotch .” In the circumstances, Main did a very sensible thing in going to get the number of the car. When j he was assaulted on the previous occasions his assailants got away. Although j it was probably done with the best intention in the world, the whole trouble had l>een caused by young | Fred Withers, who, mistaking the ( situation, jumped upon Main and tried to get the revolver. The Crown’s care was consistent only in showing that Main fired in self-defence or accidentally. Main’s evidence had been scrupulously straightforward even when it told against himself. He gave a straight answer to every question in . the cross-examination. From first to : faat Main told his story without a I single word from his counsel. Main’* character was indisputably good. When they considered his excellent record then his evidence was still further 1 strengthened. He appealed to tho jury to remember wbat he had said, and to clearly bear in mind that Main was entitled to their verdict, and not the verdict of the Crown Prosecutor or the learned judge, (Proceeding.)