THE HAMILTON-PRIESTLY CASE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 852, 26 January 1883, Page 2

THE HAMILTON-PRIESTLY CASE.

The following are the principal points of Judge Gillies’s charge to the jury, deliveredyesterday in the Auckland Supreme Court: —l cannot but think that this trial has been protracted partly on account of the imperfect mode in which the case has been prepared. In opening it, it was admitted by the counsel for the prosecution that there was a defective link in the chain of evidence. Now, when you are asked to find by circumstantial evidence a person guilty of crime it is your duty to prove the chain of evidence, link by link, and as the present chain is no stronger than the weakest part of it, if one link is wanting the whole fails. I may point out there is one important link defective, namely, as to where Priestly was that night. It would be well in such important

cases if, as in other countries, the police had the benefit of some legal advice before bringing forward charges of this sort. In Scotland, for instance, in a charge of this sort the evidence is submitted to competent legal au hority. I feel quite certain that if the evidence in this had been read over to the legal gentlemen before they v.ere called on to conduct the prosecution they would not have advised going before a jury with such an imperfect case. What

nas oeeu sec oerore us is a vast number or facts not linked together in the way that is necessary to constitute a chain of circumstantial evidence. There are a large number of facts calculated to raise suspicion, but not to make conclusive evidence of guilt. The' questions submitted to you are threefold—perhaps I might have said they are only twofold. The first consideration is—Has a crime been committed, apart altogether from the question of who did it ? the second consideration is, if so, are you satisfied that it was committed by Mrs Hamilton alone, or together with the prisoner Priestly? Then there is the question, .was it committed by Priestly together with the female prisoner. I said the questions were twofold, for it seems almost plain that a weak woman could not single-handed strike down a powerful man in the prime of life, such as Hamilton is described t* have been. It is incredible, perhaps, although perhaps not impossible, that she could have done it, nothing more frequently happens than the incredible. If Priestly struck the blow, did she assist him ; if she did it, did he assist her ? How then should you address yourselves to the consideration of these questions ? You will first consider what evidence there is of a

crime. The fact that Hamilton died of fracture of the skull is undoubted. On November 27th he was alive and well ; next morning he was dead. Proof of that wound being given by some person rested with the Crown. According to the evidence, the jury might dismiss from their minds any notion that Hamilton received this wound before coming to his house ; it did not appear that there was any evidence whatever of the injury being caused outside the house ; it was sugges ed that the blow

was struck when the deceased was lying in his bed, but if it was caused by a blow one of the doctors said it was delivered upon the man while standing. When rumors arose about foul play the Police very properly set inquiry on foot. After hearing the evidence it was not difficult to see how thoselrumors had arisen and were spread abroad. All the medical evidence was above suspicion, as regards the good faith of the several witnesses ; there was a very considerable mixture of testimony which suggested what is very well known, that people who come expecting to see a particular thing will, according to their own judgment, be apt to find what they expect. But suppose you should assume that it was impossible the injury could have been inflicted by a fall against a bedstead, then is it credible that this weak woman could have struck such a blow with this axe I Is it probable that even a man could have struck such a blow

without a struggle ensuing ?—for Hamilton was a strong, tall, powerful man, in the prime of life. There was no evidence of a struggle. So far as appearances went within the house, they were favorable rather to Mrs Hamilton's statement than to the theory of the Crown. But it was suggested that she had made contradictory statements which cast upon her suspicion, and favored the idea that if some other person struck this blow she must have known about it, and that she was screening the assassin. Mrs Hamilton had made different statements about a dog; they are differences such as would be accounted for by the place, time, circumstances, state of mind, and the persons to whom they were severally made. Was it on the discrepancies of the female prisoner’s statements that the

prosecution relied to vindicate their suggestion that she was concerned with the alleged assault on her husband in a w*y that more or less criminates herself* Familiarities between Priestly and Mib Hamilton appeared to have taken pl&ce in the presence of many of the female witnesses, who thought nothing of them at the time. They were no doubt indiscretions, and prudential considerations should have prevented them;. but they were indiscretions merely. Then, as regards Priestly, there was no evidence of his being in or about Hamilton’s house between eight o’clock on the evening of the 2?th and the next morning between 9 and 10 a.m. There was a link wanted here ; the j ury would remember the obligation was upon the prosecution to prove the charge that he committed this crime. It the crime were proved, the proof must be sufficient to satisfy the jury. There was an alibi set up by Priestly’s counsel, hut it was of a very unusual kind. ..Apt.-, ailbi, if proved, is where a person is seen in another place than that where the prosecution says he was; but in this case it has not been proved on oath that he was anywhere. In this case Priestly was not.at a place on the 27th. Although he was there on the 28th, ha was not bound to say he was ; and if he had not made the statement there would have been no case, against him. But he did make that state- ‘ ment, and it was for the jury to say what construction was to Le put on it. Then, as te the alleged suborning of evidence, it was fair to'consider all the circumstances. It was very natural that a man with such terrible suspicion pointed at him would look about for all available means of clearing himself. As to their interrogation by the police, I think that such examinations are an unfair and un-English mode of proceeding. In France, where persens suspected of a crime arc examined, they are taken before a proper tribunal. If not suspected, as much information may be got from them as can be got, but where suspected do not let others induce them, by questions skilfully or unskilfully put, to give answers that may be used against them. Ido not think it is in accordance with the spirit of the English law that suspected parsons should be examined in this way. I speak these words with a view to prevent the same course being adopted in future proceedings. The jury would say what evidence there was to establish—(l) The commission of a crime ; (2) If it was possible that this wound was caused by a' fall. In the latter case the jury would be houpd to acquit, because any other, mode of causing it had not been proved.' The prosecution merely says—“ Injuries which • caused the man’s death could not have been inflicted in that way.” But if you say that it was done by this axe or a similar instrument, then you will consider whether there is sufficient evidence to' satisfy you that these two persons were concerned in the commission of that crime. Whoever gave the wound to Hamilton that night, if it was given by another person, the female prisoner must have known. She could nut be ignorant of it. If the wound was given that night, the only person suggested as the guilty causa of it is Priestly. Are you satisfied he was there all that night 1 la there any evidence 7 Is there not an absolute want of a link to connect him with the crime, namely, proof that he was there. Ton are not bound to convict on suspicion—not even §n strong suspicion—not even pn strong probability. You must be satisfied so far as to exclude any probability of its having been done by another. But if he is guilty she is guilty. If a crime has been committed it has been one of the most atrocious and treacherous crimes ever perpetrated. You must give your verdict without regard to consequences. You must not hesitate to convict if the evidence satisfies you that the prisoners are guilty. If it does not satisfy you, you must have as little hesitation to acquit them.—The jury retired to consider their verdict. The Court was packed so that there was not standing room for another person in any part of the building. On the jury coming into the Court after an absence of half an hour, and giving the verdict “ Not guilty,” there was a sensation in Court, one or two persons attempted to applaud, but without response from the crowd. Mrs Hamilton displayed nearly the first sign of emotion since the trial. The effect on Priestly was different, hut equally manifest, he recovered his self-possession. His Honor, in discharging the prisoners, said—Foley Collan Priestly—The jury have found you “Not guilty” of the crime of wilful murder of which you stood charged. Before • discharging you I will just say one word, namely, that you have brought yourself into your present position by your own; fault, by your indiscreet familiarity with a married woman, and in endeavoring to account for your absence from your lodgings on the night in question by a falsehood. You are discharged. Marion Hamilton—You, a married woman, have brought yourself to this position by your indiscreet familiarity with a single man, by talking indiscriminately of your family troubles. Your case should be a warning to others not to commit such indiscretions. You are discharged.—Piiestly, without looking round to his fellow prisoner, at once got over the rail of the dock in amongst the crowd in the body of the Court. Mrs Hamilton sat down in the dock for a few minutes with a constable till her brother came. Priestly went away in a cab by the front, and Mrs Hamilton by the rear of the Court building. The crowd divided into two sections, following the cabs, and hooting along the street.