SUPREME COURT

Evening Post, Volume LXXXV, Issue 29, 4 February 1913, Page 8

SUPREME COURT

TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS ; - CASp. AGAINST ALBERT .JOHN. TJDY. The criminal sittings of the 1 Supreme Cotti'fc ' were resumed to-day, .before his ■Honour Mr. Justice. Chapman. ■ , The case against Albert John tidy, charged with having on sth November, 1912, placed an explosive substance . in a certain building/ the pro'p<fl ; tsrof Mary 1, Ann '-wfitli- intent to destroy oi* damage the same; also with wilfully de-, Btroying a dwellinghoiise,, the" property of Mary' Ann' Udy, was coSitiHped. '. Frederick Hercock, - a doflsiri -of - accused, said that he was asked by accused's mother to milk tlie' cows, , as. 1 accused was unwell. Witness had undertaken the milking On other odeasions*. The" Crown Prosecutor -/ Why ?-"»Because his wife asked me. {' • " Why., did she ask you<?— Because J- he had; been drinking, I suppose- ■ You know that?r-Yes. / t ( Well, why don't you gay 'so at" once ? You know what I want to ,kriow. Witness. said he supposed .'it' was. because accused had been . drinking that Mrs. Udy asked him to 100k 1 after the cows on the latest ' occasion. > His Honour i It was - 'perfectly, well known in the district that accused by drinking had rendered " himself " incap-' able of looking after the -'cows f-^I suppose so. • Witness said that about' lOatm. On, the day of the explosion accused appeared to be perfectly-well and sensible.' After the explosion witness found adcused.lying in- the paddock about a>-ctiaifr*and-a-half from the house. Ho appeared dazed, and neither witness nor _ two other men -who came up said anything- -to \hiin. William John Hall, a labourer working at Waihakeke, said ■ that. he, saw accused lestd the gig -and ■ hoi>st> away from the house on the day of- the explosion. He did not see accused return to the house afterwards. -"• -■ ' •• The Crown' Prosecutor witness of his statement in the .lower Court. Witness. repeated' that he did, not' see accused return to'tHe housi. ■ ■ • [ His. Honour lead the statement 1 made in the lower Court, and, after asking accused whether , he contradicted, - it, said: "Don't let us have "any fencing over this. We have hadHhV' family already here.' Do you .repeat that" or contradict it now and take it» back 1 • i Witness : Well, I didn't gee him ,go back to the house. ' r 'His -Honour : Then what you said in the Magistrate's Court was.incorrect J 4 -^ Yee. The Crown Prosecutor T asked, a,ml was granted leave Jto , treat' the witness as hostile. • .J. J ' • • Witness, 'in' reply- to further questions,' said that he did- not go_ over to the scene immediately after the .explosion. He did odt wa"nt to be-brdught into the matter, as he thought there would be a Court case. • •-..'.' His Honour : You thought there would be a Court case when you heard the explosion ?— Yes. ' , ' ' You thought that ■ someone had maliciously blown up the „ house?— -I don'.t know. ' , You had your -suspicions and- thought there would be a Court case?— Yes. The Crown Prosecutor-: '.When 1 the house was blown Up you thought-some-one was responsible for it. "■ There -was no one near but Udy. Did vou' suspect him?— No. . • ' , ' S > v Whom' did you suspect?— l didn't think it ,was anyone. ■ Accused, witness went on, when in drink, was a violent man. , Witness had gone over to accused's house 'when there had been rows ' between the husband and wife owing; to -accused's drinking habits. "On'one occasion? he-f ound; accused being held' down "in a lit. ' , Was he doing anything ?—Only kickJust kicking in ft quiet, way,?— Yes .' To Mr. . Maunsell : It .was. accused's habit to leave his hofse and "trap stand--ing near the house /when he. was. about to go to the factory or to 'town. ' Samuel Oates, who vigi^d -the house after the explosion, said t that there was a depression in the ground* near -the middle of the house. Arthur Reginald -Doyle- said' that when accused was lying in* the- field- after -the explosion no one went over to him", because they thought he was. desperate and they might get' a 1 crack. "•' „- • Detective ■ Mason said^thafr on' 6th November he found the -house- completely blown' to pieces; there .was- a la'rgb deP'ession in the -ground about -the centre of what had been the building, ..appearing to indicate the site oi.the\explosion. On ,Bth November, 'in answer to' witness, accused said that he knew' nothing whatever about the explosion.— ~He said- that he kept 'the gelatine in the - lumberroom of the hquse. While :hrttig questioned accused walked up,and-down.-the room, and appeared as. if Jie'did not wish to be interrogated further. *, On <9th November witness laid an information and obtained a- warrant. for,J,he arrest of accused. Witness produced pieces* of .burnt fuse which" had been, found leading from the depression^ -where the explosion appeared to have -'occurred, • towards the front -door.,- • The depositions ,of Constable Carmody, since deceased, .were, put in and read. ' *.:••,'.; Norman Sidney Cadwallador, uncle of accused, Myrtle Hercock, cousin, and James H. Wamngton also gave evidence for the Crown. - '. '" . „ Mr. Macassey, addressed the : jury very briefly on the. conclusion , of- the 1 - Crown's case.. . ;> Ji ,L ', No evidence was called for the defence. Addressing 'the jury Mr.''Mauhseil-re-viewed . the .evidence and submissions of the Crown. He submitted- that' there was no motive to connect tho accused with a crime, as it had been, shown that he 'was not feeling , malice, 'when • someone else was 1 asked to ttitk'o' 'charge of the cows. The circumstantial - evidence against accused was simply .that ho was seen in" the neighbourhood "of the property, where he had every, right and reason to be. ,Counsel urgect that what was more probftble was that a fife' had sdfc oft' one of the # detonators near , the gelatine, and which had thus been .caused' to explode. /The fact that ' there . were fires in other parts of the building after the explosion supported this itheory. Supposing that accused had blown up tho house, counsel . submitted, that ho was not 'in his. right- mind' on account of drinking fits. That was sufficient to justify the jury in finding him. not guilty, as the prisoner was. incapable of forming the ihtention which must accompany this act to make it criminal. - ■' In. summing up, His, Honour commented on the fact that in a large measure; the Crown Prosecutor- had. to endeavour to extract the evidence from unwilling witnesses. Nearly all the witnesses were related to the prisoner, and one or two that were not- appeared, for some reason, to share in the general • reticence. -His Honour said that the incapability of forming a normal intention, but only a drunken intention, was not an excuse for crime. If a man were to be acquitted on the ground submitted by his counsel, they had to find that he was in such a condition -that he could not have planned and carried out .the ,crime.in the way he must have done if, ,he had committed it. <• • ' c The 1 jury retired at;3ip.m. i PLEA OF GUILTY. John GeoYg* Norris pleaded guilty to a charge o( attempted cYjminal assault.