WILSON ACQUITTED.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 982, 24 November 1910, Page 6

WILSON ACQUITTED.

" INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE."

UDGE AND COUNSEL ON FOOTBALL,

IS ,THE GAME DEGENERATiNGI

A verdict of "Not Guilty" was -th# outcome of tlio trial of. Arthur Wilson, the well-known "All Black" footballer, and member of the Athletic Club's senior fifteen. The Supreme Court .was again crowded yesterday, when counsel addressed the jury, and the Chief Justice (Sir .Robert Stout) summed up. Wilson was charged with the assault by which the jaw of a Poneke player named Duilio Calcinai was broken during the, progress of, a match at Athletic Park on August . Neave prosecuted for the Crown, and Mr. T. M. Wilford defended.

"Finest Game in the World." Mr. Wilford, addressing the. jury, said that whoever 'struck Calcinai never intended to break. his jaw, but only to giro him-a punch. That being so, the liugby Union ought to have dealt. witH" the case, and it should never have coma i? the courts. Counsel declared him-, self one of those who believed the game of football. was the finest'in tho world ,when cleanly played. It was the national sport of this country, and he only regretted that thero were not more, players and fewer spectators. No training - bet-, ter fitted a man for any walk of life than, the game of _ football. This was illustrated' even in that court, where they saw the Chief Justice, an old who had reached the highest position in' the legal profession.- Counsel himself also was an old representative player. Most of our- magistrates, - professions! men, and members of Parliament, were old. footballers, and so was the o£ the Territorials, and the heads of most of the public Departments. Wherever they looked they saw men in high • posi> tions who had learnt to play the—gamd on the football field.

Theory of the Defence., . .After enlarging on tho qualities oifi self-control and self-sacriiice requisite to), the character and development of a' great footballer, lite his client, counsel discussed the evidence at some' length. At one point lie was interrupted by tha Chief Justice, who stated that the jury had not to . consider whether ■ William Wilson- was or was not struck before Cak cinai was injured.

Counsel, however, went on., to 6uggesi that William "Wilson, being rendered un« conscious by a smashing blow from Cal« ciriai, could not retaliate at oncey but did so later. Counsel then ■ analysed the evidence for the prosecution,' and contended that there were so many dis> crepancies as to the actual circumstances-' that the prosecution had nothing to build on. It was much more likely that - the s blow should have been struck by another.' player in retaliation for a blow inflicted! upon himself, than by the captain of tha team, and a representative player, whw had no personal injury to avenge. -Counsel reminded the jury that whefl) he put Sim Wilson in the witness-box,| he asked him if he saw the blow struck,, and if he saw who struck it, and on re-i ceiving the reply "Yes," sat down, and! that oounsel for the Crown did not ask) who struck the blow. • j, His Honour: That tells against yon*; rather than in your favour. _ . Mr. Wilford: I look at it in quite aiw other way. Counsel further said that when he tendered William Wilson, thai man who, the defence said, did the injury, he knew the risk .that was being run, unless the witness claimed a certain privilege, which he had a right to claim.) Yet counsel for the Crown practically did not cross-examine him. • For the Prosecution. , " \ Mr. Neave, in his address, dwelt upon' the evidence of Wiren and M"Kenzie.' who would clearly have been glad, il. they could have said that "Eanji" Wil-' 'son 1 did . not strike the .blow. He alsopointed out that not a single member of the Athletic team had given evidence for. the defence. He accounted for the apparent discrepancies in the Crown; evidence by the different positions frortf" which the witnesses saw the All the contradictions between the witnesses for the prosecution and for the defence disappeared if they' considered that William Wilson struck Calcinai at the time whan Calcinai charged into him,, and that that was not the blow that' broke Calcinai's jaw. That blow, counsel submitted, was struck a few moments later. If William Wilson struck tha * blow that did the'injury, he was shelter ing himself behind his brother, and thaS counsel submitted he would not do. Chief Justice Sums Up. His Honour, in summing up, said thtf question for the' jury was; Did the accused strike Calcinai P The other questions that had been put were irrelevant.. The jury need not consider-any question' of self-defence. Whoever struck tha blow, it was a cowardly blow. He could understand a man in- a temper, if ho thought he had been wronged, or that' his brother or friend had been wronged, striking a hasty blow. .. They were all liable to infirmities of temper, but to. approach a man from' behind and 6trike him , was cowardly. Twelve witnesses, including Calcinai; swore that the accused did it. On the other side,, the accused and his brothers denied it, and also twelve witnesses.; Only four or fivo of them, however, said that they' knew. who etruck the blow, namely, William Wilson. Another seemed to be doubtful; and several said it was one of the smaller Wilsons. The jury must be guided by the weight of evidence, not merely bj; the number of witnesses.. , The Early Days and Now. It was regrettable that such a case should come before the Court, but if. football ceased to be football and became little ■ better . than a prize fight, then the law must be invoked to put. down what his heaTers and himself . could only regard as an unseemly exhibition. The number of witnesses at football matches now was a hundred times . what it was in the early days. "He had seen many games played - before only thirty or forty spectators, and one hun- . dred .would have been considered a largo < number. He hoped that the gambling spirit had not ;come into football, and that it' could still be looked upon !a's a sport. If any . means were regarded as' fair to get a win, then football was no longer a sport. After reviewing the evi- , dcnce in detail, his Honour said that it : was for' the jury to say whether the balance of testimony was not in favour of the cafe for the prosecution. Eleven witnesses had spoken positively to ac- ' cused having struck. the blow. Twelve, including the -accused, said he did not . strike it, and two of them said it was struck from the' front by a man in front of Calcinai—'a statement which was con- ' tradicted by the other witnesses. - There could be no doubt the blow was struck from behind. It was a cowardly blow, and the. effect of such incidents would ' bo that football, instead of ■ being believed in by the people, would be detested by all who wanted to see decent conduct among young men. \yhat Actuated the Jury. . The jury retired at 11.35 a.m., and returned into the Court room at 2.10 p.m., . having in the meantime been allowed out for lunch. The verdict, was: "Not Guilty." His Honour: I presume you assume that the other Wilson committed tho assault? The foreman: No, your Honour. Wa simply thought there was nit sufficientevidence. The prisoner was discharged.