THE CASHEL STREET MYSTERY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1131, 19 May 1911, Page 6

THE CASHEL STREET MYSTERY.

TWO MEN CHARGED WITH MURDER % TRIAL BEGINS. THE CASE FOR THE CROWN. SOME THEORIES. A NEW WITNESS GIVES EVIDENCE : (By Telegraph—Press Association.) Christchurch, May 18. The final act of what is popularly inown as the Cashel Street mystery was opened at ten o'clock this morning, when Harry Alexander Jack and Walter Richard, Sadler faced liis Honour Mr. Justice Denniston and a jury of twelve at tho Supreme Court, charged with tho murder of .'Ethel May Bradley on or about Tuesday, February 7. It will bo remembered that a woman's dead body was found in a lane off, Cashel Street, now known as Mystery Jjauc, at about 7 o'clock on the morning of February J, and that the postmortem examination disclosed that prussic acid had been administered to her, and that she had been for two and a half months pregnant. After the inquest Jack and Sadler were arrested, and charged with the murder of the woman, and were 'committed by Mr. T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., •to the Supremo Court for trial, both ■ pleading "Not guilty." Since then both have been incarcerated in Lyttelton Gaol. Mr. T. !\V. Stringer, K.C., Crown Prosecutor, appeared for the Crown, and' Mr. T. G. Russell, with him Mr. Donnelly,' for tho prisoner Sadler, and Mr. S. G. Raymond, and with-him Mr. J. A. Cassidy, for tho prisoner Jack. 'Mr..Raymond applied.to have the prisoners tried separately. . , Mr. Stringer said.he could not oppose 'the application. His Honour considered it was a proper Application to make. .Tho evidence of one .'prisoner ,was somewhat mritasohistic to tho '-evidence of the other, and the convenience ■of the Court must not be considered in' such a case. . Mr. Stringer said.ho purposed taking the cstse against Sadler first, and subsequently puggested .that the charge should be read over, and the prisoners asked to plead. (His Honour agreed. • . ' The prisoners, both looking littlo the , worse for their experiences, stepped into' 'the dock under escort, and pleaded "Not guilty" to the charge' that on or about February 7, 1911, at Christchurch, "they did .unlawfully kill. Ethel May Bradley; and did thereby commit the crime of murder." Jack was then taken back to t>o sells. -

The Case for the Crown. Mr. Stringer, in opening the case; for the. Crown, said the prisoners were' being tried separately because one of the prisoners had made a statement affecting the other prisoner. The jury must remember .that the charge of murder was not against the prisoner! alone, but in conjunction with one Harry Alexander Jack, a'he known indisputable facts were .few and comparatively simple. The difficulty would be when they considered the other facts. The woman Ethel. May Bradley y\-as' a healthy woman,' thirty-five years of age, employed by Mr. G.' T. fWestoti. The: prisoner -Sadler'.was a tobacconist carrying on business in Cashel Street, arid the prisoner Jack "was his assistant.. lie would show the'jury that the woman was seen, by her nephew going in a westerly direction along Cashel Street, towards tho Zetland Arms Hotel, that .'she was.seen at about a quarter past eight standing by the hotel; and that Jack iventnpand met her. He would show theriv that/tKese two , were, lovers'. He wouM' show them that the two went, for a , walk that night, and he thought he ; would be ablo to prove that the two were seen going along. High Street, and up Cashel {street, and, into Sadler's shop at 9 o'clock that.night,, and that was the last seen of the woman, 'for tho next morning she was found dead in a lane adjoining. Sadler's shop. At tho post-mortem she was found to have taken prussic acid. Jack had made certain statements of what •ho had done on the evening in question. It would be shown that that statement was known to Sadler, that Sadler exhorted'him to stick to it, and that subsequently Sadler made a statement' altogether different to it. He would showthem,.that'Sadler,'■ .was in his shop early in the, evening, that ho went, out with iv man, and, then.. returned to the shop. Ho had said' ho had never - seen the woman, which 'he (Mr. Stringer) would show them was absolutely untrue. Later on in the case, during the coroner's inquest, Sadler made another statement as to Jack' bringing the woman into his shop on the evening jn question, as to her suddenly dying in his shop, and-they rushing out in fright, ami then returning at about 11 o'clock, and in sheer terror removing the body from the shop to the lane. Continuing, Mr. • Stringer said that Sadler admitted at the inquest that his previous statement .was untrue. Jack had been keeping company with the woman for several months, ,and-she was pregnant, quito ; probably through him. On February 7 she was .'alive and well, and she met Jack on the evening in question, and went to Sadler's shop. . He, would show that she'either had had administered to her, or administered to herself, poison Those were in'rlispulablo facts from which they could 'draw their conclusions. ■ ■

• A Theory Criticised. It. would be suggested "to the jury, that the voman took poison herself, finding •herself . pregnant, and th»'t Jack would not marry her; that Jack and Sadler were miserable cowards. The first explanation might look likely, but thero were several matters for their consideration which might throw doubt on it. If that were the real theory • they roust assume the {irl, Well and healthy, had made up her Inind that as Jack .would not marry her ihe would tiike- poison. But she was Dnly- pregnant two and a half months, End this fact could only have been known to her sis weeks, and it was only during this six weeks she could have procured the poison. Now the jury must know it .was very difficult to obtain poison; difficult enough'for a man, more diffioult for ft woman. During that six weeks she dad been in town, and diligent inquiry had failed to show that she had procured that poison. 'It was also difficult to believe that it.thero had been a breach of the law the person supplying her with poison had not come forward to save two innocent men. Then she must have taken the poison when walking with Jack. That not knowing what the interview .would.bo she- hntl.armed 'herself with it, nnd then taken it.- Therefore, Jack must have, known .she took (ho;poison, but lio apparently took no ■■steps in tho. matter, for according to Sadler's own 'story ho paid sho wa.s merely ill. It was, therefore, impossible to believe this. If sho furthermore took poison how could sho have walked Tight along High Street without any difficulty? Again, if the theory was correct that sho took poison, nnd walked into Sadler's shop, how could they reconcile that with Sadhr's statement? .Yet when the woman was soriousIy ill, and with telephones and.doctors handy he took no steps to obtain assistance of any kind. If ho were so ignorant it showed callous brutality. Furthermore, he did not know that the woman was really dead. He could not without medical assistance. And then his dumping her : could (hey believe that an innocent man wonld have acted in that brutal way? It would be said that it was cowardly fright, but, of course, they would have to consider it.

The Crown's Theory. If it wero true that tho woman, did not commit suicide, what other explanations were available? There was tho theory that they had cold-bloodedly and callously murdered her. As representing the Crown he said it was not crediblo thai the prisoners had killed her. That was not tho theory ho would put before them. His theory would be that one or hol.li administered to her poison in ignorance. If they, for the purpose of procuring abortion, had administered to her n mixture which might induco abortion, it might, without their knowledge, have

contained sufficient poison to cause her death. If for the purpose of procuring abortion they gave her a mixture knowing it was likely to cause death, though they did not wish death, it would bo .murder. But; on the ■ other hand, if they gave her a mixturo, not knowing it would cause death, thev wero still guilty of unlawful killing, biit it would bo the much less, graver orinic of manslaughter, ana they could return' it verdict of manslaughter on tho indictment. What were the facts in support of this? Jack worked for Sadler. Sadler had been a friend of the woman all hev life, and, ascertaining the trouble the woman had Rot intd, was willing to help them. n reply to an objection from Jlr. Russell. Mr. Stringer said he could cive no direct proof that Sadler was aware of the woman's condition, but from tho familiarity between. Jack and Sadler, it was fai'r to. assume ho knew -of it. He could not suggest to tho jury that prussic acid was ordinarily used for procuring abortion, but all-poisons had this effect. It was not unreasonable to suppose that a man in giving a mixture- to Sadler might accidentally have put in prussic ncid. if two men intended to procure abortion, and, say, that Sadler, finding that tho results wero different to what ho expected, his subsequent conduct might bo quite natural. They could also imagine that Jack was similarly terrified. Then they must consider tile conduet of Jack on that night. Hβ would show that after 9 o'clock, instead of Jack rushing to the Zetland Hotel to get whisky for tho woman, as stated by Sadler, ho stood gossiping there for a quarter of an hour, and then had another drink. Was it credible that lie would leave a dying woman like that? What was more probable was that he went out for half an hour whilst Sadler operated on the woman, and then came back'to ascertain tho result. That explained the lying statements they both made. They had concocted a statement as to being back in the shop making up the books till two in tho morning, a statement which had" been disproved. Why did they have to explain their presence in ' the" shop'? Because they had been seen at two o'clock next morning by. Constable, Cudby. Jt was not till .ten. or'eleven days ; afto£ the affair that Sadler-made his."second statement. There was a gap in • the ctlse for the Crown which, tho jury might bo able or not able to surmount. Ho could not give them any direct testimony as to how the woman took the poison. It was not his place to lay even grave suspicion against, the prisoner. Tho onus was on the Crown to' prove its case, and if the jury were not satisfied they must acquit tho prisoner both of murder and of manslaughter; but if .taking the whole of the surrounding circumstances they were satisfiod,they were justified in bringing in an affirmativo verdict. Evidence similar to that given in tho Lower Court was then led.

A New Witness. One new witness wag examined. Lionel Norman Brown, grocer, said that he lived at Eltham, in Taranaki. In February last lie was on a visit to Christchurch, and was stopping at the Zetland Hotel. Whilst stopping thero he mado tho acquaintance of Jack. Ho was at the Zetland for about a month. He remembered the fact that a woman had been found dead in Mystery Lane. The previous evening, when he was standing outside the Zetland Hotel lie had met Jack at about a quarter to nine. Jack passed by witness with a lady dressed in dark clothes. They went into Sadler's shop together. He remained at the hotel sonie little time. After that ho remembered a man named Price coming along, and Jack' also. It would be about five minutes after Jack went into the shop that he came up to the Zetland again alone. Price; and afterwards, Philpott, came up, and they were talking together in front of the hotel, and then they all went into the-hotel- together and had drinks. Jack then went out:. ■ Witness went out into tho street about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour later, and met Jack again at the door. They went into tho hotel together, and had a drink together. Witness arid Jack did not remain more than a few minutes in the hotel this time. The hotel closed shortly after. It might have been a quarter to or ten minutes to ten, or a little later when Jack left witness this time. -Witness did r riotse6 Jack supplied with any liquor it the hotel to take away with him. To Mr. Russell: He left Christclnirch .about a.week.or. so after the girl's body was found; His memory was deficient on the point. He could r not■ say within two or three days. He knew at the time the police were making inquiries,, but did not consider it neceesarj to give them information. I'rom here he went to Wellington, and stopped there for a fortnight, where he was subpoenaed. He had not communicated with the police. They came to him. Ho was served by Detective Andrews. Detective Andrews had not read over any statement as to what witness might make. Witness thought Detective Ahdrew.3 asked him'his whereabouts that night. Witness made Iris statement on March 16. The matter had gone off his mind completely in the interval. He had told the detective that he could not state for certain the exact time. The detective had'mentioned no time to him whatver. He was alone when Jack and the girl went past him. ■ He was quite convinced' that the first time he saw Jack at the hotel that evening was whon ho passed with the girl. To the foreman of the jnry: The girl did not appear to be staggering or ill. To his Honour: She appeared to be walking in the ordinary manner. When the Crown case closed, the Court adjourned, till tho morning.