A SCOTCH PARALLEL TO THE MAAMTRASNA REVELATIONS.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XII, Issue 35, 19 December 1884, Page 19

A SCOTCH PARALLEL TO THE MAAMTRASNA REVELATIONS.

(From the Dublin Freeman.) The law officers of the Crown mast surely be aware that several instances bare occurred within recent times of false evidence being given by informers in capital cases for the mere purpose of saving their own lives. The Maamtrasna revelations are by no means without a precedent, a^ it is not Decessary to go back to the days when Titus Oates was convicted of deliberate perjury after having brought a number of innocent men to the scaffold, to show the terrible wrongs that may be perpetrated under the mask of justice by relying upon •' Queen's evidence," even when it is of the most direct and unambiguous character. The student of the State trials will find that, -ince the date "f Titus Oates's conviction, a gentleman named Hurley was tried in Ireland for having sworn false informations before a justice cf the peace accusing a number of " papists "' of robbery and assaults with intent to murder, the fact being that these " outrages " were concocted by himself for the purpose of currying favour with the authorities. Hurley was found guilty of perjury, but probably owiu< to his social influence, gut off with a fine of £100. In the year 1754 a woman was sentenced to transportation for life at the Old Bailey for falsely chargiag a number of innocent persons with abduction and rtbbery. But a case whica was tried at the Glasgow Spring Assizes in 1877 affords in some respects the most striking parallel on record to the miscarriage of justice which, there is now unfortunately every reason to believe, oocurred in connection with the Maamtrasna trials. In the Scotch case the evidence of an informer, who was himself implicated in the crime, was discovered in time to be a piece of deliberate perjury, and ere the doom of his intended victim was uronounced the Crown counsel were forced to reject his testimony. Indeed, this discovery appears to have been simply providential, for the approver's statement was, strange to say, corroborated by the dying declaration of the murdered man ; and yet it wa3 afterwards clearly shown to be an audacious tissne of falsehoods. No such timely revelation occurred in the Maamtrasna case, and it is an appalling reflection that tne proof of Myles Joyce's entire guiltlessness cannot bring back the innocent life sacrificed. The facts in the Scotch tragedy, which was popularly known as " The Govan murder, ' are so remarkable that the following brief outline of them cannot tail to prove interesting : — Three men named Thomas Farrell, Toomas Hancacher, and John Joyce (n<men infaustum,) were indicted at the Glasgow Spring Assizes, 1877, for the wilful murder of Alexander M'Crae, cabman, by stabbing him with a knife. It appeared ,that at about 9 o'clock on the preceding New Year's Eve, which happened to fall on a Sunday, three employes in the dockyard of Govan, wbo resided in that district of Glasgow, were being driven home in a cab from the town of Renfrew, a distance of three miles. When they had travelled about half the distance they suddenly came upon two men evidently engaged in a deadly struggle. One of the struggling pair appeared to be in iminent danger, and cried out loudly for help. Thereupon the cabman pulled up his horse, and two of the persons inside got out, and went over to the scene of the struggle. Apparently, however resenting this interference, the two combatants, on their approach, immediately ceased to fight and turned to attack 'he newcomers. Seeing this, the latter immediately ran back and rushed into the cab, but before the cabman could get the door of the vehicle closed he was stabbed from behind. The unfortunate man managed to mount the box and drive a short distance. But he had not gone more than • few yards when one of the two men who had been previously engaged in the straggle happening to make a furious effort to reach the occupants of the cab, received a violent kick in the cheek which inflicted a severe and distinct wound. Here the cabman who was growing faint, and was, no doubt, alarmed at the prospect of a desperate conflict between the two outsiders and tboee he was conveying, descended from his seat and got inside the cab. An examination was then made of his person, and it was found that there was a deep wound in his stomach, which must have been caused by a knife. As by this time the cab was approaching Govan, the occurrence was quickly made known to a large number of persons who were met npon the road and a hue and cry was raised. Thomas

Farrell, one of the persons accused of the crime, was caught a few minutes after the affair was made known while runuing along the streets of Govan, and was taken into the presence of the cabman, who identified him as one of the men by whom the assault on himself had been committed. Next morning Farrell was brought before the three men who had been passengers in the cab, and was declared to be one of the assailants by all tbree, one of them putting his identification apparently beyond all doubt by pointing out that he (the passenger) had kicked one of the assailants on tae left cheek, leaving a distinct mark, and that Farrell bore such a mark npon bis cheek. The police authorities being upon this satisfied that Farrell was guilty, looked about for his associate in the crime. Two men named Hannacher and Joyce were soon arrested upon suspicion, and Hannacher was identified by the cabman before lie died, as well as by the three passengers, as having been a participator in the murder. Joyce was not identified. In the declarations subsequently made by Hannacher and Joyce separately they agreed in stating that they had met Farrell (whom they bad not previously known) in Renfrew on the Sunday on the evening of which the murder was committed, and had spent part of the day with him there, drinking at an inn ; that they htarted together to go home to Guvan, whcie they all resided, but th-.t Farrell had soon left them and gone along the public road in front, and that they themselves had. ultimately gone nome by a ''abort cut," through some fields. They added that they had not seen the cab at all, and knew no.hing of the occurrence. Some of their other statements were manifestly false. Farrell in his declaration stated that he had been in Renfrew and admitted that he bad been drinkiug at an inn there with Joyce and Hannacher. He further siattd that he had started to walk to Govan with them in the evenir^ but that just outside Renfrew he parted company with them. He went on to say that he walked home alone, met do cab, and knew nothing of the occurrence. He accounted for the cut on his cheek by saying, that shortly after leaving Renfrew he had fallen on the road, owing to intoxication after the large amount of drink he had taken, and had in this way cut himself. Shortly after Farrell made this declaration two persons came forward and made a statement so the effect that they had been walking from Govan to Renfrew on the evening of the event, and had met Farrell (whom they previously kuew) near Govan, and that several minutes afterwards they came upon two men fighting. Aimost at the same time they met a cab, which was approaching the combatants. This corroborated a portion of Farrell's statement, in which he admitted having met these men. It may also be nouced that, as far as external appearances went, the wound on Farrell's cheek might have been cau-ed either by a kick or a fall. These were tlie leading f eta which the Crown Prosecutors had before them, and it is evident that they must have found themselves in a critical dilemma. It appears, m the first place, clear that the declarations made by Hannacher and Joyce weie false, ilannuehcr having been distinctly identified ; and, in the second pUce, all the evidence went to show that only two persons were directly concerned with the crime. The cabman and tbe mea in ihe cab were certain that there were only two assailants, and yet there were three prisonersBut, naturally, the Crown Counsel were looking to their declarations as well as the other portio .a of the evidence, that Hannacher and Joyce had been together all the evening, and t>at Joyce, if not an accessory, knew all about the affair. Under these circumstances, tbe Crown determined to give Joyce an opportunity of becoming a witness, in other words, to accept him as '• Queen's evidence." Accordingly hts " precogoiti >n "—(the phrase in Scotch law for an accomplice's statement) — was taken, and it was to tbe effect that Farrell and Hannacher were guilty ot the deed, he himself being close by at the time, but taking no pai tin the utrage. Before the day of trial had arrived, however, Joyce was again carefully questioned by the Crown and by the " agent " for the prisoners, and not only displayed considerable hesitation in answering, but contradicted himself in some details. Finally, on the day immediately preceding that fixed for the trial H mnacher made a confession to the agent for defence, in which he stated that Farrell was not present at all. On this statement neing placed before the Crown prosecutors they were forced to the conclusion, in spite of the direct evidence of identification, that Joyce (the inform t) was, after all, the guilty perso», and that Fnrrell was wholly innocent. The case against Farrell was accordingly with irawn, and Hannacher, having pleaded guilty of "culpable homici.le," was sentenced to penal servitude for life. Tbe guilty Joyce escaped aa '• Queen's evidence," the acceptance of such a witness being, according to the law of Scotland, a guarantee of pardon. The dying declaration ot the cabman proved to be a case of mistaken identity. The wound in Farrell'a cheek seemed to be a convincing proof of the truth of the evidence against him, but it was afterwards discovered that Joyce had been seen washing a wound in his cheek on the night of the occurrence; but, owing to his non-Hen tification, attention hadn>t b -en called 10 it at the time when he was arrested. Another remarkable c incidence which helped to give a resemblance to Joyce's false story was, that he happened to bear a srong resemblance in face aad figure to Farrell. ThU resemblance deceived even the dying cabman, wliose mind was no doubt weakened by his prostrate condition. This extraordinary case shows that dying declarations are not, in some cases, to be relied on at all, and the circum-.ta.nce a may recal the controversy as to the evidence on which the ill-f-tied Fiancy Hynes was convicted. It will alco furnish a precedent of tbe strongest kind for what has recently occurred in connection with the Maamtrasna murder trials. If even the Crown counsel in " the Govaa case" had, on th j very verge of convicting an innocent man, to- •• hold their bands," i* there nut the stronges' ground for assuming, a* a reasonable conclusion, that the confessions of the informers, Casey and Philbin, aro simply the true history of the crime for which Myles Joyce suffered the extreme penalty of the law ?