SUPREME COURT— CRIMINAL SESSIONS.
(Before His Honor Mr Justice Gresson.)
Tuesday, January 17.
His Honor took his seat on the Bench at ten o'clock.
. Anthony Noble, charged with the murder of Mary Jane Molaumby, was again brought up, and the hearing of the evidence for the Crown was resumed.
Detective Browne was recalled by His Honor, and questioned as to some portion of the evidence he had given on the previous evening. Henry Smith deposed to having seen prisoner on the evening of the murder. He was in the adjoinins section. Witness went out on that evening and made the place secure. On returning he found that the house had heen broken into, and a pipe and case, and also a jewel ca»e taken away. He identified the jewel case, and also the pipe and case Had purchased the pipe at a shop next to Mr Osborne's Cafij.
Caroline Smith, wife of the previous witness, corroborated her hn<band's evidence, and described the jewel- case. There was a little cut in it, which she had made to make a pair ot ear-rings fit in it. The witness being shown the case, identified it as the one in which she had made the cv». Witness had seen her bushand smoking his pipe just before they went out. Me put ir into the case and phced both in hi* overcoat pocket, whinh he threw on to the sof;?. Woul not like to swear -o the pipe, but the pipe-case had a bit off in one place and she believed the one produced was the same.
Max Mendershau9en identified the pipe and case as resembling articles of the kind which he had recently sold to Henry Smith.
Montague Jack«on deposed that hi- saw prisoner on Saturday, the 7th instant, carrying the tomahawk produced. He was carrying it on his left shoulder. Was positive as to its being the same tomahawk.
Sergeant-Major O'Donnell recapitulated the evidence he gave at the inquest.
Mrs Buxton also repeated the evidence previously given.
Margaret Willis: I am the wife of Thomas Willis, residing in Sewell-stieet. I know the house of Thomas Molaumby, situated four doors from our house. I know the prisoner by sight. I saw him on the night of Saturday, January 7th, in Se well-street, between eiuht and nine o'clock. He was coming from Staffordstreet, through Scwell-srreet, going towards Hampden-street. I could not swear to the dress h« had on. I took no particular notice of his clothes. I believe he wore moleskin trousers. I saw him again in Sewell-street, about a quarter to eleven o'clock the same night. I was standing at my door. It was about the time the alarm about a child was given. People were rushing towards Mr Molaumby's home. The prisoner was standing still in Sewell-street, between my fence and Molaumby's house. I did not notice his dress then. I am sure it wad the prisoner whom I saw on both occasions.
By Mr South: My house is situated about two sections distant from Molaumby's house. I used to notice the prisoner when he was among the prison gang, and I was able to recognise him ever since. I am positive he was the man I saw. I went to my door at two minutes past eight o'clock, and I stood for some time at my door. I could not say how long I was there before the prisoner passed. To the best of my knowledge, the time would be about ten or fifteen minutes. The first persons I saw pass were an old lady and gentleman corping from. Hampden-strcet, The next aud only person, wm the. ratfjoflw, He was walk* \% flwtyx fttjW. <\H* } P Wit
observe anythijg in his hand I cannot say whether he had or not. The trousers which he wore were a soiled pair of moleskins. I saw him tor about three minutes, but I cannot say whether I saw him piss Molaumby's house or not. I cannot Say what sort of dress he had when I saw him a second time.
John Little, draper, Sewell-street, deposed to having seen the prisoner parsing his premises on the night of the murder, and that the axe was found six feet from where he had seen the prisoner standing. Joseph Meyers, a boy about tw he years of age, was nex- called. . He snid : I know the little girl, Mary Jane Mulaumby, who was murdered. I recollect seeing her last Saturday week I know the prisoner. When I saw Miry Jan she was at the back of the Lancashire \.rms in Tancred-st'-eet. I saw the prison r in that str et. I cannot say exactly the nme, but it wa9 some time before dusk. The prisoner was speaking to Mary Jane Molanmhy. I saw him again at the Gridiron Restaurant. Mary Jane was standing by. He put hi-, hand in hi . pocket, took out an apple and gave it to her. I heard him say to her, '• Between nine and ten o'clock." She began crying, and said she would ell her mother. Tnati< all I heird of what he said to her. She began' to cry after he had giv-.n her the app'e. By Mr South : My mother is a widow. I go out sometimes with my brother, who takes out the Evening Star. I first spoke to my mother about what I heard the prisoner say to Mary Jane. I have known the prisoner a good while by sight. I was standing some yards from the pri onsr and Mary Jane when I saw him speaking to her. When he said " Between nine and ton o'clock," he spoke in a low tone of voice.
Aaron Meyers: I am a brother of the last witness. I have seen the deceased girl, Mary Jane Molaumby. I have sen the prisoner also, at times. I saw Mary Jane going down Hampden-street between six and seven on the evening of Saturday week. She was walking down the street with a bundle in her arms, going towards Revell-street. The prisoner was walking just behind her — about the distance of the length of the court-room.
By Mr South: The prisoner might have been a little more than the length of the court behind her. Mary Jane ovett»ok me and passed me; and on looking behind 1 saw the prisoner. I do not say he was following her. I did not see where the prisoner went to.
Re-examined: The way Mary Jane went led towards the Gridiro i Restaurant.
George Forrester: I live with my father in Sewell-street, next door to Mr Molaumby's. I saw the pri-oner on the day the girl was murdered He was standing on the bridge at the crossing of Harapdenstreet and Sewell-street. That was about nine o'clock. I saw him afterwards on the path opposite Molaumby's. That was about nine o'clock. I saw him afterwards, as he was going home, at about a quarter to eleven. I was going to fetch Detective Browne. The prisoner was going along Harapden-strcet towards KevelT-street.
The witness was cross-examined by Mr South as to the hours at which the prisoner was seen.
Walter Zohrab : I live with my father in Sewell-street. I saw the prisoner on Saturday wei-k. I saw him on Hampdenstreet bridge, between eight and nine in the evening. He had on a black hat, a long darkish frock coat, and a p iir of dirty moleskin .trousers.
By Mr South : I went on the bridge at eight o'clock, to race. I went to the theatre afterwards, about nine o'clock. I told my father on Sunday about seeing the prisoner. I knew the prisoner when he drove Clarke's express.
Percy Zohrab : I saw the prisoner on the night of Saturday we>k, on the bridge in Hampden-street. It was hetwci-n eight and half-past eijjht o'clock in the evening. I bad spoken to him twice on previous occasions.
By Ur South : I went to the panorama afterwards, and it had not lon# commenced. My brother, George Forrester, and I were r nning races, and when we came to the hridgr, the prisoner was standing there, looking up Park-street with his back •owards Molaumby's W.lliam Henry Bre.ze: I live with my father in Revel I- street. I saw the prisoner 1 etw en ten and eleven o'clock n S iturday night He came up the Mail Mail tramwiy with me. I hadheinlab.»ntachild eing kil'cd and was going to Mr M•la m y's ii u^e 'le had a new pair of white molt'-'u trousers on. H s hoot* wer- not i •„• > up. fie a-k< dme what was the m f r : ■-. i -I [ sai I tlier • had been a mii^ie • '•aid it was awful. A buy had n>] > •■ r -,f the murder, and I was coming up • . s^e about it. The prisoner overtook me I wa9 walk ng alon-jf.
Davi i Hen] i nin : I am a furniture denier i . Rjvell street The piisoner haworked for me. The last time he worked for me, after be ha I gone, I missed au axe from the yar<l. His Honor interposed by <tating that he thought it was quite unnece-«*i y to i>ro..e'd with any fu the i-r >f of i I .itity of the axe.
John Hartley : lam a prisoner in the Hokitika daol. I know Noble, the prisoner in the box. I remember Monday the 9tli January. I saw him that night in one of the cells in the gaol. I was toid to go into the same cell with h'm. A short time aft- r I went I sai I, " This appears to be a bad case against you." He said, " Well, it seems to be so at present." I then inquired if the coroner'B inquest was over, and Noble said, '' I suppose it is." He further stated that the servant girl at the Butchers' Arms was the worst evidence against him at the coroner's inquest. He sa d there was a dirty pair of trov ers that he had steeped, and thrown on the roof of the house to dry — that she said she saw him taking them down off the roof of the house on Saturday afternoon, and a red striped Crimean shirt which he had been wearing, and which was wet with sweat when he took it off. He c aid that a red < 'rimean shirt will appear, when dry, after it got wet with sweat, the same as if it had been streakeil with blood. I said then, " How could that alfect your case?" lie made answer that the constables said his clothes were marked with blood. I said then, " Well, I believe that whoever it was who committed the deed, the child was brutally butchered." He answered then, "No; she wasn't. I only struck her three times with the tomahawk— twice with the eye, and once with the edge — once with the eye on or near the temple, a id another time towards the crown of the head, and I cut her throat with the edge." I said " Well, you must have been a fool to allow the blood to get on your clothinir," and he answered and said, '• Oh, it wasn't her blood that was on my clothing — I was killing geese, and it was th«ir blood that was on my clothes." He did not mention whether the blows were struck inside of the houae, or in the swamp where the child, was te4«, That was aft ftftt
By Mr South : He said that the worst evidence given against him was the evidence of the servant girl at the Butch rs' Arms. He told me he was arrested on Sunday morning. It was on Moriday night he told me of the girl's evidence Ido not know where Noble was during the Coroner's inquest. Of course I do not. I was not there. He told mo he ' n'a j at the Coroner's inquest. lam undergoing; sentence at present for petty larceny The affair before might have been some thing worse than that. I wag not in for hiuglary before. I believe it was for larceny. I will swear that it was. I wa» convicted before that for the same offence. I be^an the conversation in the cell. J heard him *ay di<tin< tly every word that T have repeated to-day lam ns positive alam here that I heard every word. I was sitting about a yard and a half from him. He did not, ins'ead >f using the word " I " U9- the word " -he." and say that" she was struck with the tomahawk*." I was put into the cell to see that he would not commit any outra eon himself. He spoke in his usual tone of voice — not very loud. 1 ment oned the conversation first to Mr Cleary on Monday morning. I did not tell him all that I have Baid to-day, but I told him the words about the tomahawk. j I have ahoiu three weeks or a month to serve under sentence. I have never been convicted of burglary. I repeat that he said : " I only struck her three times with the tomahawk. He used the word " I." He told me what I have stated here to-day.
This closed the evidence for the Crown, and the Court was adjourned until three o'clock.
The Crown Prosecutor, in reviewing the evidence, after the Court had resumed, said that, except for the evidence of the last witness, the case was entirely one of circumstantial evidence. It was, therefore^ necessary for the jury carefully to consider whether or not the circumstances enabled them to come clearly to the conclusion that the prisoner at the bar, and he only, was the person guilty of this murder. One of fhe circumstances was the discovery of stains of blood on the prisoner's clothing —blood which was described by Dr Garland as mammalian Mood, and not the blood of fish or fowl, or such as might be communicated to clothing by a person killing geese. Then there was the prisoner's axe found close to the scene of the murder —an axe admitted by himself to be his preperty, and identified as such by the wit esses Saunders and Gallagher. Then the door of the house where the murdered chil-l had been was found unlocked, and the prisoner was found to have a key which unlocked the door. But, more important, was the finding of the jewel case near the scene of the murder, and the finding, oi the person of the prisoner, or in his possession, a meerschaum pipe and I ipe-case which had, on theeveuing of the murder, and at one and the same time, been stolen from a house in the neighborhood. There were aso the evidence of numerous witnesses as to the presence of the prisoner in the vicinity of the house during the night of the murder, at a time more or less distinctly fixed as about the time when the murder must have been committed. And there were the circumstances of the prisoner having changed his clothes, of his having washed some portions of them, and of his coat having the lining torn out. and the shirt having half of the slepves torn off. Finally there was the evidence of John Hartley, to whom the prisoner had confessed his crime. It was a questionable thing if a person should be convicted on his own confession ; the be'ter opinion was tint he should not ; but the confession was not unsupported ; and whatever Hartley might be, he gave his evidence clearly and distinctly. If they believed him, the jury must believe that the prisoner committed the murder, and it would be hard to think that be was not to be believed. They could scarcely suppose any human being such a fiend as deliberately to swear away the life of another, es iccially when there was no motive or object to be gained. If, by the evidence, they thought the crime had been brought home to the prisoner, they would find him guilty of the crime for which lie was indicted ; but if there was anything to g ye them the slightest reasonable grounds fo" doubt, they should give the pris ncr the benefit of that doubt.
Mr South addressed the jurj' for the defence. It was, he sad. a very hackneyed phrase for counsel to say, in a case of this kind, that prohably in the ciurse of experience they had never felt a gi eater weight of . esponsbility, but he could tell tln j in that he did fel that responsibility, as called upon to defend a man whose life was placed in peril. While recognising this responsibility, he, however, had not shrunk, and did nm shrink from now stating to them what he believed to be 'he true aspec of the ease. Ile thought he was not erring when he said that the Government itself, having found out that this man was destitute, took means to provide for his defence. Proceeding, with a full sense of his responsibility, to lay before them the case for the prisoner, he said most unhesitatingly that, out or t ie evidence of the man Hartley, there wis no* hing in the prisoner's conduct which was not perfectly reconciieable, according to law, and the rules of circumstantial evUence. with the fact of his innocence He asked them to regard the ca>-e i-< two aspects -that was, as connected «itn Hartley's evidence, and as disco mected with it. That the poor child had been <ione to d ath in their midst, and thit an almost fouler crime had heen previously committed, was, as the Crown Prosecutor had said, undenivible, and the sympathy of the whole community had been excited for the bereaved parents. A stream of indignation had flown forth from this place, and ye y properly. When yesterday the mother of the murdered child had entered the Court and given her evidence, it struck him that he had never, as a man, witnessed anything so perfectly inclusive of sympathy from the roughest heart. But there was one consideration which a jury must not lose sight of— that that stream of sympathy should be met byacouneractin^ stream, that they should say "By virtue of our oaths, to find a verdict, according to the evidence, and to the evidence alone, we shall, as men, cast off every feeling by which we may have been actuated, befoie we knew that we were probably to he upon the jury. We shall disconnect ourselves from all feeling. We shall go into the evidence fairly, and, after grave and calm deliberation, come to a conclusion, as we are called upon to do." He repeated that, but for the evidence of the man Hartley, the prosecution had, so to speak, been grapplim; with a shadow. If people wanted to imbibe, they did not go to the most polluted stream. They did not go to the most poisonous source in which to dip their cup. They did not go to the siaol to bring a man thence to give evidence of a casual conversation involving a confession or an admission made there. That was not the source ta which, from any preference, they were likely to go for evidence, The reason he allu,de4 to the
. r, r ,.»,, .v ~ rrrr^; cu tion with wcakuess in their case, else they would not have had recourse 16 slich evidence as that of Hartley. If the prosecution, had a good case, presenting a most consistent presumption or inference, tb.py would n °t have had recourse to such evidence. But the prosecution was obliged to briu"' *t forward as a supporting buttress, in ord er to strengthen a shrinking case. He had to remind the jury also of the tendency °f the action of the police in sueh 1 cases. When a crime of this kind -vVas perpetrated! i f w » s fc he d ut y °f the police, according to a writer, " keen as a 3portsman to ba" "their game." They thus fixed on a mm—" spotted" him, as it was called— and tried to surround him with suspicion and obloquy. The prisoner in tbi« case was at a further disadvantage. He labored under the obloquy of having been once before m the prison gang, though it had to be remembered that, when found in connection with this ca.se, he was found in respectable service. BuN let the jury do their best to disconnect the accused from this charge. Tt was most difficult to do <=o ; people thought they did so, but did not, and he implored the jury to do their utmost to remove from their minds the conception that the accused was the guilty person, unless, by an inevitable inference, they could come to no other conclusion. According to the conception of the prosecution, what were the actions of the prisoner from beginning to end ? The whole of the evidence ' as to the times at which the prisoner was seen, was J so various and diverse, that he might be supposed to be walking about the neighborhood ot the scene of the murder all the evening. It was very true he might have been about the neighborhood ; he (Mr South) did not for a moment attempt to set up an alibi; but it was for the jury to say whether his presence there was directly indicative ot his guilt. To another circumstance— the washing of a pair of trousers— much weight had been attached; but had they not known of a garment being washed more than once, by reason of the first washing being incomplete or unsatisfactory. It these trousers had been so serious an element of e%idence, the presumption certainly was that he would have concealed them. It was not at all likely that he would have openly hung them up m his hut. Then as to the behavior of the prisoner, on the occasion of his arre=t, the behavior of prisoners under such circumstances was a matter for very nice consideration. The presence of three policeofficers coming simultaneously to the priaoner's hut was quite sufficient to account for some degree of excitement. Bit what did he do? He at once acknowledged that the axe was his. Too often, when the police had a man in a position of peril, it was the disposi'ion to try, if possible, to " catch " him in his answers ; wherea*, according to a learned judge, it was simply a policeman's duty to " keep" hU prisoner secure ; and it was very true that, in this case, the man did, if they relied upon the evidence, say something which was untrue. He said he had lent his axe to the woman servant of the hotel, and went forth for the purpose of looking for it or her. It was within the boutids of possibility that he might have lent it to her, and it did not follow, without the slightest tittle of evidence, that, because the prisoner's axe was found near the scene of the murder, he had been the person who had committed the crime. He had watched most narrowly for what the lawyers called an act of asportation — for any evidence as to how the axe got on the spot where it was found— hut the evirlence revealed nothing of the kind. By tho«e who had seen the prisoner in the neighborhood, and prior to the crime, nothing whatever was seen in his hands. Then, as to the jewel-case, and leaving out of view the evidence as to the pipe and pipecase, if the jewel-case had been found in the prisoner's house, or had been stolen from the house of the father of the child, the matter would have assumed a different aspect. As to the keys found in the prisoner's hut, all that was shown was that four out of the six were common keys, and that one of these common keys' would open the door of Mr Molauraby's house. There was nothing at all special about the keys, or about the circumstance of such keys being found in any man's pos ession, or capable of opening any particular doors. Neither in the circumstance of the axe being found where it wa*, nor iv the circumstance of such keys being found in bis possession, was there any hing inconsistent with the prisoner's innocence. They were simply adduced agiin^t him as circumstances creative of suspicion ; it did not prove his guiltiness ; and if they could arrive at any doubt on tbfe subject, by all means let the prisoner have the benefit of that doubt. The giving of an apple to the child in the afternoon was not more than many a rough working-man mizht naturally do, and the statement as to the words "between nine and ten o'clock" being heard at such a distance as was described was much Jess likely to be correct han to be the result of excitement in the bov'smind relative to these e'reumstanc s, and to a consequent sug 'e*tion of improbabilities, which he thought he was entitled to ask the jury to cast aside as not worthy of any serious consideration. There was then an absence upon the prisoner of any traces of the crime by which the crime of murder was^preceded or accompanied, and there was a palpahle defectivenesa as to the stains of blood found upon Irs clothing. The blood had not, as was advisable and necessary in all such cases, been examined promptly for the discovery of its true character, but, after the lapse of several days, and he disputed the statement of the Crown Prosecutor that it was only possible for an expert to state whether hlood was mammalian blood or not.
His Honor interposed as Mr Soutn was proceeding with his argument on this point, and objected to it, as involving statements to the jurj' which were not comprehended in the evidence. Mr South explained that he desired briefly to rebut the theory set up by the Crown Prosecutor — not to impugn the evidence, and that lie had proposed referring to Taylor as an authority on the subject, if he were so permitted. His Honor said opinion or statement contained iv Taylor's work might have been placed before the medical wituess, but it was not competent to then raise a question which was not raised in any way by the evidence. Mr South repeated bis exp'anation, and his objection to the Crown Prosecutor's representations as to the analysis of blood, and resumed. Further than he had quoted, in his review of the case set up by ' the Crown, the Crown Prosecutor did not base bis case on circumstantial evidence, and with regard to such evidence the greatest authorities had told juries to be most careful as to how they received it unless it related to a series of circumstances closely and necessarily connected, and made as clear as if they were absolute and positive proof. He quoted from. " Wills on Circumstantial Evidence," an<\ from charges to juries referred to, th,erehi, «w«wl ywmph W?.g <w tfi^taTngfar ($
circumstantial evidence, and the conditions under which it was only to be ac : cepted as indicative of guilt. Coming then ' to the evidence of Hartley, it had to be remembered that the man was dull of hearing, and that, by his owu admission, he was a yard and a half distant from the prisoner. Taking it in this most charitable aspect, the evidence was evidence which must be looked upon with suspicion as to its borrectness, and they could not overlook the fact that, though it might have been motiveless, it came from an impure and polluted source. Without this evidence, and evidence of such a description, they must fall back upon the circumstantial evidence, and he repeated his cautions as to its character and to its reception. He claimed for himself that he had now addre»ped them on mo-4 of the points affecting the prisoner, or brought to bear against them, by the circumstantial evidence or otherwise. His only fear was that the wrong man nvght be fixed upon, and, knowing that, in all probability, in such a case in England a postponement or a change of venue would have been applied for, he hoped that, while they had the slightest particle of doubt on any point, they would give the prisoner the full benefit of it. It would be an act of great presumption on his part to suppose for a moment that, because this pri»oner was a man of " color," he might not receive all that consideration and fairness of trial which would he given to one of their own blood and color, under whatever circumstances placed. That should be a reason for them throwing round him a halo of protection, and he apprehended that such would be one of the motives by which the jury, of all others, would be actuated. Finally he asked the jury, without being uncharitable enough to suggest that the witness Hartley would do such a fiendish thing as to ; swear away the life of a fellow-creature, to treat his evidence as unreliable. Was a man's life to tremble in the balance on account simply of the supposed use of a pronoun? If, after his Honor had delivered his charge, they had in their minds a scintilla of doubt, although their moral suspicions might be strong against the man, it were better that they should let him escape than risk the chances of convicting an innocent man. His Honor, in summing up, entirely concurred with some of the observations made by the counsel for the prisoner, in the course of his energetic address. There were two dangers in the present : case against which he would briefly warn them. One was, that this mur- ! der being so shocking and atrocious in its character, they must, in a community like this, have heard and read a great deal 1 about it outside the Court. Another J danger was that, when such a crime was ] committed, the mind was so much shocked J and revolted by the crime, that there was ' ah aptness — not knowingly, but through > the infirmity of the human mmd — to find < some person upon whom vengeance might be 1 wreaked. He thought it merely necessary 1 to warn the jury against those dangers. 1 As to the evidence, uo one had seen the 1 crime committed, but the Crown Prose- ' cutor had brought forward fncts from ' which it was contended they, as reason- < able men, must infer the guilt of the pri- ] soner. If the case rested wholly ] on circumstantial evidence —if it were ( not corroborated —he should direct them not to find a verdict of guilt, unless « they were satisfied with nothing short of < its being consistent with nothing but his | guilt. His Honor continued by reading i over the evidence, and commenting on its i salient points, either as being for or against i the prisoner. Eeferring to the conduct of 1 the police in connection with the case, he 1 paid it was conduct deserving of great < praise. They had exhibited remarkable energy and intelligence, and, so far from < any blame attacr. ing to them, he thought < they were worthy of great praise. We should remember that we could not live 1 in the community in which we lived, if the pol cc did not closely trace out crime, find, in this case, this had been done with marked care and energy.
Mr South begged to be permitted to «ay that, in any remarks of his, be had made no reflections upon the police. His feeling was quite the reverse, and he had simply quoted it as their recognised duty to act 39 the keen sportsman in the detection of crime.
His Honor, at another point of his reading, referred to the conversation between the police and the prisoner. He had had occasion to speak to policemen for endeavoring to elicit a confession, but he saw no reason whatever to complain of the Detec tive putting the questivins which had been put in this case. As to the evidence of Hartley, it wag perfectly legitimate evidence, end, having got it, it was the duty of the C own to bring such evidence forward. The Crown was oblged to use even the e\idence of an accomplice in crime in order to bring a criminal to justice, though a jury were not to found a conviction on 9uch evidence alone. Bearing that in mind and be aring in mind that Hartley had several time 1 ? been convicted of larceny, there was no reason to think that he would deliberately prejure himself, without motive f«ir swearing falsely, or for swearing away the life of the prisoner. What was the circumstantial evidence? The axe was found b hind the pool of blood where the child had lain. It was traced to the possession of the prisoner a few hours before. The prisoner did not give a true account of it ; he gave a false account. There was also found near the pool of blood a jewel case. It was not found on the prisoner, but there was evidence that it and a pipe and case were stolen from an adjoining house nearly about the time of the murder. The pi; c was found on the prisoner, and the case in his house. It would be for the jury to say whether the three things were not closely connected — whether it was not a reasonable conclusion that the man who stole the pipe and case also stole the jewel case. His Honor referred to other items of the circumstantial evidence which, he said, was altogether remarkable. Considering that crimes of this nature were seldom witnessed, it was very singular that so many circumstances should dovetail with each other, and he repeated that the greatest credit was due to the police for the manner in which they had managed the case.
Mr South, at the conclusion of his Honor's charge, referred »o the deafness of Hartley as a circumstance which he had omitted to notice his Honor commenting upon ; and Mr Harvey referred to a remark by his Honer as to the sufficiency of that evidence.
His Honor repeated more fully to the jury what he had laid down in his charge.
The prisoner : May I ask a question, if you please.
His Honor : Whatever y< v have to say, you must say through your counsel. Mr Cleary, the gaol governor, who was seated nest to Mr South, and immediately under Xfyc (to<*i coated \*is\ the . - -
The prisoner : About the trousers I wish to speak. His Honor i You should have instructed your counsel. The Prisoner : I had no chance, your Honor.
Mr South : The prisoner has had every opportunity of doing so, and I directed that, in Court, he should make any communication through one of the warders. He. had every opportunity of commu'iicatinu about this — sup 1 osing it to be of any consequence, Avhich it is noi. The jury retired, and Avere absent a quarter of an hour. On their return into the Court, which became densely crowded in the interval of their absence, the Registrar put 'he usim! question : How say, you ? Do you find the prisoner Guilty or Not Guilty ? The Foreman : Guilty. The Registrar, to the prisoner : What i<? your age ? The Prisoner : Going on to 51 years. The Registrar : Have you anything to say why sentence of the Court should not be pa«sed upon you. The prisoner : It is not much use. I did wish to make a statement before the jury went in, but I Avas not allowed. His Honor : You had your counsel. The prisoner : Yes, your Honor, but I had no chance of putting any questions to him whatever.
His Honor: Do you wish to say anything else. You need not say anything as to your not being guilty; the jury have found you guilty. TbVprisoner : 1 do, your Honor. I had no cbance, except fifteen minutes, of saying anything. I had no chance to say anything about my travels and troubles, and Avhat I have done.
Mr South : It is, perhaps, quite unnecessary to inform A/our Honor that I saw the prisoner on the first occasion for tlnee quarters of an hour. I saw him subsequently, and then I gave particu'ar instructions to Mr Cleary that the prisoner should make his instructions through the Avarder, so that I might not be interrupted. That Avas entirely for theprisonei's benefit. God forbid that I should in any way neglect the defence of the prisoner. His Honor said he had no doubt that all was done that should have been done.
The prisoner spoke a few words in the intervals of this conversation, which were not distinctly audible. His Honor : Anthony Noble— You have been convicted of a most atrocious crime— a crime such as rarely occurs in any civilized community. You have proved yourself devoid of the commonest feelings of humanity, but, foul as has been the crime Avbich you have committed, it is my duty to tell you you are not beyond the reach of mercy. There is an All-Merciful God Avho is willing to hear all who come to him in the wuy he has provided, and I earnestly recommend you to use the short time you haA r e, to make your peace Avith your offended God. It only remains for me now to pass upon you the final sentence of the laAv, and that is — That you, Anthony lioble, be taken from "the place Avhere you now are to the prison whence you came, and thence to the place of execution, and that, in the manner and form by law appointed, you be hanged by the neck until you are dead. And may God have mercy on your soul. The prisoner stepped out of the dock and walked to the Upper Gaol in charge of the Warders and Mr Cleary. A number of the persons in the Court, and others who were ont-ide, followed the prisoner nearly as far a-? the gaol, and Avere someAvluit demonstrative in their expressions as to the prisoner's crime, but, except a few, they ultimately dcs-is ed on heing expostulated with by Mr Cleary. The case was the last on the calendar of criminal charges, and the jury was discharged. The Court Avas adjourned till 10 o'clock this day.
Permanent link to this item
SUPREME COURT—CRIMINAL SESSIONS., West Coast Times, Issue 1654, 18 January 1871
SUPREME COURT—CRIMINAL SESSIONS. West Coast Times, Issue 1654, 18 January 1871
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.