THE GOLD ROBBERY.

Cromwell Argus, Volume I, Issue 45, 21 September 1870, Page 7

THE GOLD ROBBERY.

; 'I HE TRIAL OF M'LENNAN. The Supreme Court opened at ten o'clock on Thursday, the Bth of September. The Judga summed iip as follows : The question which the jury had to determine was not so extensive a one as it would have been had they been trying the prinoipal offender for larceny, for the whole ques» tion turned upon the extent to which the approver's evidence had been confirmed by independent testimony. In the first place, the approver's evidence came before them tainted with great suspicion. In cross-examination Ilennie admitted that he expected part of the re waul, and had also been promised a pardon by the Government. Of his right to obtain that pardon, in accordance with the terms of the proclamation in the Gazette, there could be no doubt whatever. That was one motive. As to Uennie's impression that he would receive part of the reward, he (the learned Judge) was inclined to think that iiennie was mistaken, but the impression that he would do so waß in bio mind, and he went into the witness-box with what to him was a very great game to play. Circumstances occurred about the 13th of AugUßt to cast very strong suspicion upon Kennie ; and on the 14th the police arrested him. It might be that Rennie had sagacity enough to see the case was against him ; and the proclamation which had been posted about the place for the preceding seven or eight days occurred to his mind, and questions passed between himself and the police about the reward. Smith was very cautious ; gave the prisoner the usual warning j told him the amount of the reward ; and shewed him then a printed copy of the proclamation. Then it perhaps occurred to Ilennie that he had better confess. Now, what was the use of his confessing without an accomplice ?—for unless there was an accomplice in the case, he would neither be entitled to the pardon nor to any portion of the reward, to which he would be otherwise entitled. Rennie's position in the Court I was precisely this : If he failed to convict the prisoner, then he stepped into the dock himself immediately after the failure, and was sentenced by the Judge. The fate of the man in the dock meant to Rennie, on the one side, a considerable term of imprisonment; and on the other, pardon, and, as he thought, reward also. The jury must take this fact into consideration in weighing Rennie's testimony, even if there were no rules which required coTrjborat:'on of it as being the evidence of an approver. If the jury chose to take the bit in their mouths, and return a verdict of guilty on the unsupported testimony of Rennie, no court in the country could set aside their verdict upon that ground alone; and all that could be done would be to recommend the Governor to exercise his right of pardon. They would see that the witness had a motive for telling a series of lies in the witness-box ; and it was their duty to keep that motive continually I in their minds, and to weigh his evidence in the strictest and.nicest balance. It became more incumbent upon them to do so when they were informed that their verdict could not be set aside, because they had convicted on Rennie's uncorroborated evidence „ . . Every accomplice who turned Queen's evidence had a strong motive to convict the prisoner, because it was Upon the conviction that his own pardon depended. The jury were therefore required to take circumstances of corroboration, hot as matters of importance in themselves, but as enabling them to judge of the value of the accomplice's testimony. When the present jury retire, they must ask themselves, Shall we or shall we not—ought we or ought we not—believe this witness ? And if they come to the conclusion that the evidence was open to doubt, then came in another rule of law, and they must give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt. What were the circumstances relied upon for a corroboration in this case ? They were numerous, but each was extremely trivial in intrinsic value. There was not a very strong circumstance amongst them that might not be accounted for in other ways ; therefore, if any one, or even two, of these corroborative facts had stood alone, it would have been his duty to say that that was not enough ; but inasmuch as there were a great number, it would be for the jury to decide upon their total value. He merely said, Consider them separately and then altogether, and ask your own consciences whether they ought to be admitted as sufficient corroboration of the approver's testimony, seeing his strong motive to make a cane out against the prisoner His Honor commented at considerable length on the evidence. It was evident that one man could commit the robbery because one man did do it; and all that was required to enable one man to steal the treasure was accurate information of the state of the place. Was an accomplice necessary for this ?—or, could not Rennie have obtained the information for himself by careful enquiry ? There were discrepancies in Rennie's evidence about the key, and the letter which he said M 'Lenrian left at Elliott's, but the general aspect of his testimony was that it was clearly i and consecutively delivered, and, so far as his own robbery was concerned, might be accepted as true. The question vhich the jury had to decide was, Are these several little circumstances of corroboration such as to induce us to give credit to Rennie's testimony ? If they believed th.it testimony to bo true, it was competent for thum to find a verdict against the, prisoner ; but if they thought there was no corroboration, and that so far as the prisoner was concerned, Rennie had been concocting a story for the purpose of obtaining the reward, they would, of course, acquit the prisoner. If they had any reasonable doubt on this question, they would givehiui the benefit of the doubt. At the close of bis Honor's remarks, the audience strongly manifested their approval. The jury retired at eight o'clock, and returned into Court at five minutes to niu<>. with verdict of " Not Guilty." The announcement was received with, clapping of hands and cheering by the spectators. One lad waß taken in custody, and sentenced to 5$ hours' imprisonment for contempt of Court, but was released by direction of his Honor a few minutes afterwards. Mr Hagjntt stated that b<s did not- intend to proceed with tli» ©iher indictment agoiftat ! M 'Lciinan, who w liberated.