ALLEGED APPROACH TO JURORS

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 195, 16 May 1944, Page 4

ALLEGED APPROACH TO JURORS

Barrett On Trial MISTAKEN IDENTITY AND ALIBI CLAIMED The trial of Jack Barrett, labourer, aged 63, on charges of attempting to obstruct the course of justice, began in the Supreme Court, Wellington, yesterday. It is alleged Barrett attempted to influence four men summoned to serve on juries at the February sessions of the Court to favour Florence May Radcliffe, who was to be tried for unlawfully using an instrument. In respect of one of the men there was an alternative count of attempting to bribe him. Counsel for accused said that, not only was it a case of mistaken identity, but that accused was in bed when the offences were said to have occurred. Mr. Justice Johnston was on . the bench. The Crown Prosecutor, Mr. W. H. Cunningham, conducted the prosecution, and Mr. W. J. Stacey appeared for accused. Outlining the prosecution, Mr. Cunningham pointed, out that one of the men allegedly approached was on the panel for the first week of the session, and the other three were on the panel for the second week. The charges of unlawfully using an instrument were set down for the first week, but postponed till the second week, and then it was found the jury panel had been interfered with and the trial was postponed again. George Smeaton Clark, sheriff of the district, giving formal evidence, said that during the war up to 120 men would be summoned for a jury panel. The Act stated that any person could inspect the jury list three days before the jury panel’s service commenced. Reference to “Squealers.”

Thomas Vincent Connell said that on February 6, the Sunday before he had to serve on the jury, an elderly man, a stranger, arrived at his home in Adelaide Road in a car. Witness presumed the man had come about a job as rent collector, for which witness had applied, , and started a conversation about that. “He put his hand on my knee, and said, ‘I am here on much' more serious business than rent-collecting,’ ” said witness. "I was surprised, and said, ’Are you?’ He said, ‘You are on the jury.’ I said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘A big case is coming off —Mrs. Radcliffe for abortion.’ I said, ‘Well, what of it?’ He said, ‘Now, look here, Mrs. Radcliffe is a good woman. She has two children, lost her husband in an accident, is doing these young girls a good turn, and her father, a Mr. Lulham, has asked all his old friends to contact those who would be trying the case and has 'been asking all his old friends to see if they could bring about leniency.’ I then said I would only weigh the evidence as I found it, and I would 'be scrupulously fair and broadminded. There was then a jull, and he said, ‘The trouble, you know, is the squealers? Tie said, ‘You know what happens to them in my country?’ I said, ‘Well, what?’ He said, ‘We just shoot them and bury them, and that is all there is to it.’ ” After further conversation witness told the man that he equid not be a party to such a proposal as his visitor had made, and the man Jeft, saying something about witness’s not mentioning his call. Witness said he picked out accused at an identification parade as his visitor. To Mr. Stacey, he said he thought the reference to “squealers” was not a refer- . ence to witnesses in abortion trials, but was meant for him; Bruce lan Cossar said that on the afternoon of February 29, the Saturday before he had to serve on tfie jury, a man beckoned him to a car across the street from his residence in Hawkestone Crescent, and raised the subject of his being on the jury and of the abortion trial.’ This man told witness that he would make it worth witness’s while to go his way, bringing notes out of a pocket and offering witness to. Witness did not take the money and, to get away from him, said he would think it oi er. The man carried a walking stick, was well dressed and aged over 60. He picked, him in an identification parade, but he knew most of the others. The man in the dock was a different type of man. Francis "William Elworthy said that on February 5, the Saturday before he had to serve on the jury, ,a thick-set. well dressed man aged between w and 65, with a walking stick and overcoat, called on him at his home at Miramar, and mentioned the abortion case. He asked witness if he did not think the squealers should not be put in the dock as was the accused person, 1 and said ne had been told witness was a fair-minded man. He asked witness to be fair to accused. Witness said that, as far as he was concerned, justice would be done. ’At an identification parade witness could not recognize the man. _ Eileen Elworthy, aged 17, daughter of * the previous witness, said it was accused who called on her father. Harry Mason Norlmg said that on February 5, a well-dressed man carrying a stick and wearing glasses called at his home at Lonsdale Crescent, Kilbirnie, mentioned the abortion ease, and said some girl was a malicious liar. He toos from the man’s visit that he wanted to sway witness, being interested m the case He was not able to identify the man at a parade! .... At the close of the prosecution Mr. Stacey applied for the charges in respect of Norling and Cossar to he withdrawn from the jury on the ground that there was no evidence of identification that accused was tlie man who interviewed Norling, and insufficient evidence that he was the man who spoke to Cossar. His Honour declined to take that step, but said he would instruct the jury m respect of the charges. Accused’s Evidence. Afccused said he had never seen Connell in his life before the identification parade. On February 7 he was m bed, having had an operation for toxic goitre on January 8. Between leaving hospital on January 17 and his arrest on February 8 he was at home,' except for two or three visits to a barber 200 yards away. Every second 1 day the barber shaved him in bed. On January 29 he was unable to walk to the barber’s shop. He had never met Cossar till the proceedings, nor Elworthy, nor Eileen Elworthy. He did not know Radcliffe" or her relatives or friends. Neither fie nor his wife owned a car. Witness admitted to the Crown Prosecutor that 24 years ago he used the name of John Rodney. Forty-one years ago he was imprisoned for 14 days for thett, and 24 years ago was convicted of being idle and disorderly and consorting witn thieves. In Australia 24 years ago he was charged on five counts with breaking, entering and theft, but absconded, autl bail was estreated. Evidence that accused was in bed about the time of the alleged offences was given by Walter Jackson, retired, and Lewis Clifford Home, barber Marie Barrett, wife of accused, said that she was always home on Saturday afternoons and Sundays, and when she was at home he was in bed. He did not get up till wel linto February. Florence May Radcliffe, now serving a sentence, said she had never spoken to accused, made any indirect appreaches to him, and did not know ot any approaches by her relatives. Io the Crown Prosecutor she said she saw the jury panel for the first week of the February sessions at her home, but did not keep’it, and a brother of hers might have seen it. The panel for the second week was shown to her at her home by her solicitor. _ .. With the completion of evidence the Court adjourned till this morning.