SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3163, 9 April 1873, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSION. Yesterday. (Before hia Honor Mr Justice Chapman ) SHOOTING- WITH INTENT TO KILL. Thomas Ryan was indicted for having, at Dunedin, on the 4th January, shot, with intent to kill, one James Farrell. Mr Barton defended, Sub-Inspector Mallard detailed the prisoner’s arrest, and spoke of the ground in the right-of-way from Moray place to Gaol street as having been soft and muddy when he examined it at daylight on Sunday, Jan. 5. [ The prisoner’s clothes and boots were produced. The boots bore little traces of mud : the trousers none.] His examination was conducted as follows :—From the time of Ryan’s arrest to the present have you made any inquiries as to his whereabouts that night ? His Honor ; You must know very well that in a prosecution of this sort it is a very important matter where the man was, or what he was doing on the day of the crime, whether iu this or the other place, or fir away. It may save a false arrest. For instance, suppose you had inquired and found that Ryan was iu Oamaru that day—there would be an end of the matter, of course. Before the police know anything, whether the man is in Princes street or in Oamaru, they must ask. The only way of ascertaining the fact is by finding it out. Did you institute any inquiries ? Witness : I did not. I had the positive assertion of Detective Farrell that it was Ryan who shot him ; and upon that assertion I apprehended him. What I have to ask you is this —Did you make or cause to be made inquiries as to where Ryan had been during that day ? —Yes, I spoke to several persona aV>out it : To M.r Talbot, accountant, who could give no information whatever ; to Mr Scott, of the Oriental Hotel; to Mr Dodson, of the Empire. Was there no one else?— Yes, a female party, whose statement I have here, as I took it down. Her name is Sarah W bite. Does she live somewhere about the Water of Leith 7 I don’t know : she is a woman of the town. I saw her at my office. I sent late Constable Meikle for her. (Mr Haggitt objected to the line of examination, as the communications referred to were privileged, but his Honor ruled that they were admissible.) His Honor: Did you get anything material , to the case from her 7 —No, yohr Honor. Mr Barton : Will yon swear that 7 Look carefully over the reports you have in your hand, and then toll me whether or not you will swear that what she said was not mate- ’ rial to the case, either for the defence or the prosecution 7—Not In the present state of the oasp. Her evidence might be of some use at a later stage. On your oath, will you say that the evidence of this woman would not be of service to the prisoner 7 (Mr Haggitt objected, but his Honor allowed it to be put.)—ln the present stage of the case it would not be material. Has it any bearing upon Ryan’s whereabouts that night at about eleven o’clock, before or afterwards ? —lt has not. (Mr Haggitt again objected, saying that in his opinion the questions were most unusual.) Take the range of an hour—from half-past ten to half-past eleven: will you then swear it has no bearing on the case ?—I swear it has not. Taking a range of from ton to twelve, will you swear the same thing?— From those hours it does not affiect the case, provided her statement now is the same as she made then. Is not this evidence by the Crown, or by you, in your discretion? —Not one bit of it. If I know anything favorable to the prisoner, it would be my duty to tell it. Have you not received information from people who were at the same place as White ? —No Have you not received information from the police of the statements of people who were at the Fame place as she was, according to the statement made by her f —Yes, I have. Then, I ask you, will you swear that that information has not bearing on the case, as between the hours of ten and twelve ! 1 cannot directly swear that. Surely you can swear either one way or the other ? His Honor : If the answering in the direct negative or affirmative is likely to discredit you in the eyes of the jury, you are enabled to explain. Witness ; Then I say to that question, yes ; it may throw a doubt upon the case as against the Crown. But I want to explain that in saying so, that on seeing this person and questioning him very closely for upwards of half an hour and requesting him to see the prisoner amongst others, he distinctly declined to do so ; consequently I could not put any faith in his testimony, and threw it overboard. That is, to the best of your judgment, you would not credit his testimony ? I would not. Have you not received information concerning persons who said they were at the same place as Miss White ? —1 have ; but through i third party. Now 1 ask you, will you swear that tae statements you received concerning those persons had no reference to the hours of ten and twelve ? —Y os, they do ; and they would be very favorable for the defence. Will you swear that only one person gave you information of being acquainted with the whereabouts of Ryan betwen the hours of ten and twelve ?—I have only information of one ; but I have heard it casually remarked that there were more. Will you swear that there were not two or three ? —There might be, [Witness was further examined on this point, and maintained that he had only actual knowledge of one person, though he had heard of others.] In the course of the inquiries made bj r him, a number of things had been brought under his notice, which, on being sifted, were found to be of no value whatever. He knew that one Hewson, an ax-sergoant of police, had a knowledge of Ryan’s whereabouts between ten and twelve that night; but he had not received any information about one Henry Duncan. Ryan, when arrested, was very cool : as cool a* witness had ever seen him. There was not the slightest alteration from his usual manner, except that he showed surprise at the charge, Albert Byford, railway gate-keeper at Stuart street jetty, detailed the circumstances under which ho saw prisoner in Castle street at noon, on the 2ml January. He was cross-examined thus : iou did not see Ryan with a revolver and a packet oi love-letters in his pocket ?—No; if I had seen him with a revolver I should have tried to take it fran him. Perhaps, if you saw me with one outside the Court here, you

would take It from me ?—-Yefl, I should, because you have no business to carry firearms. (Laughter.) You have not seen Napoleon dneo?— No, I have not. He did not live long enough, or I might have had a “squint” it him. (Renewed laughter.) Did you ever see a man walking about waiting for a lady ; or a lady waiting for a man ? Did not Ryan look very much like as if be was waiting for a lady ? —I do not think he was. But, as he was a single man, 1 do not see why he should not; though, at bis years, he ought to drop such games as that, (Renewed laughter.) He being a discharged police sergeant, and knowing me to have been in the police force, I thought he would have stopped and said “ gooddlay” in answer to me. His not doing so made me watch more, perhaps. Then you felt he had insulted you?— Yes. And you are paying him out now ?—No. Witness further said he would be surprised to learn that a number of persons were prepared to corac forward and state they saw Ryan at the Caledonian grounds up to three o’clock that day. The Crown Prosecutor put in as evidence the letters signed “Delia” and “Dudu,” which closed the case for the prosecution, and, in answer to his Honor, Mr Barton said he would take till to-day to consider whether or not he would call witnesses.

At 4.40 p.m., the Court adjourned till 10 o’clock this morning.

This Day.

On the Court resuming this morning, Mr Barton intimated that his client desired him to call witnesses.

His Honor ; You had better use your discretion ; you know bettor than he. Mr Barton, after consulting with the prisoner, said he would proceed to call witnesses, reserving hia address until the evidence was closed. The following witnesses were then called :

Patrick Keligher ; Prisoner was boarding at my house —the European Hotel. I saw him repeatedly on the 4th. He was playing billiards in the house during the day, and I saw him in the hotel in the evening. When Mr Mallard called that night. I told him Ryan was not in. I believed he was not in. I afterwards saw Ryan ; it would be about ton or fifteen minutes past one o’clock. I heard a knock ; it was Ryan, and 1 leth m in. (Mr Barton wanted witness to state what Fyan then said, but his Honor ruled that it was not admissible as evidence. Mr Barton argued that the effect of that ruling would be to shut the defence, as he would be unable to show the state of the prisoner’s mind when informed of Mallard’s visit. His Honor said ne had no doubt of the inadmissibility of the evidence ; if Mr Barton thought he was wrong, ho should tender a bill of exceptions, when the question would be settled by the whole Court. Mr Barton said he had better adopt that course. If a conviction resulted, he was sure he would get him clear upon the bill of exceptions. His Honor was quite sure he would not. Mr Barton repeated the question, which was again overruled, and taken note of.) Prisoner expressed surprise when I told him what Mallard had come about. We at once started for the Police Station ; it was at his suggestion that we went. He seemed to be annoyed at the charge. His manner during that day and night was bis usual one. Hebor Howson, contractor at Palmerston, and an ex-sergeant of police, said : I was at the Water of Leith on the night of Saturday, January 4. I arrived there in the last night at about twenty minutes or half-past ten. I came from Port Chalmers. I had supper there ; it was got ready immediately on our arrival. I saw Ryan there that night; supper was over, but the whole of the things had not been removed. He came into the room where I was, and was asked to leave it and go into another room for business purposes with Mr. Crafts. I could see him distinctly In the other room, because both doors were open. He was there from about twenty minutes past eleven till a quarter to one. I only left the house for about five minutes during the whole of that time. He had not the appearance in the slightest degree of anyone who had been exerting himself. If he had I should have noticed it, as I was quite close to him. The news was brought by Sarah White. He took the report as 1 did, much as a lark, for the girl told the story much as if it were a lark. I don’t think anyone there believed it. There was a discussion as to the propriety of going out to see whether it was true or not. I know Ryan when ho came in that night; but ho did not know me, though I have often seen him. I don’t believe I have spoken to the man three times in my life. Yielding was present. I stayed in town till the following Tuesday, when I returned to Palmerston, where I have been ever since. I coudd not distinctly swear that I have been spoken to by the police. By Mr Haggitt : I went to Port Chalmers that afternoon in a buggy with Mr Crafts and Sarah White, and returned about halfpast ten. Sarah White was not at supper, there were at sapper Yielding, who was then coachman at Orafts’s, Crafts himself, and one Tuck, 1 had not known any of them the day before. I had an appointment for two o’clock that day at Crafts’s, and if I did not see him there I was to go Port Chalmers, as he was going away on the following Monday. I stayed at Crafts’s from the Saturday till Wednesday morning, when I loft town. My first acquaintance with Sarah White was on the Saturday afternoon ; she came into the hotel Just as I was about to go to Port Chalmers, and I asked her to have a drive. I had never seen her before. She came back with us ; but I did not ask her to have supper, because I did not want her. I am prepared to swear that it was not from halfpast eleven to twenty minutes to twelve that Ryan was there. 1 had occasion to leave the hotel for a few moments; came back again, and noticed by the clock in the house that it was then half-past eleven. If it had not been so late I should have gone up town, but I did not think it so late. I looked at the clock several times ; the last at a quarter to one, when Sarah White went away. Ryan went away before. I did not hear a cab drive away. My attention was not called to the clock by anyone. William Yielding, coachman : I was at the Water of Leith Hotel on the night of January 4. I saw Ryan come in. It was be tween a quarter and twenty minutes past eleven. By Mr Haggitt: Ryan left in a cab As he was going away he told Mr Crafts that it was a quarter to one. I don’t know whether he looked at bis watch. I did not miss Tuck from the room at supper time.

Henry Duncan ; My father owns the Cattle Market Hotel. On the 4th January i had negotiations with Crafts about my father taking Ryan as a tenant, and was to meet him at his own house between seven and nine that evening, to give him a decided answer. But as I did not see my father in the interval, I did not go. Charles Lawson was at the Caledonian Gathering on January 2. Saw Ryan there at half-past eleven that day ; he was walking leisurely round the ring. Witness spoke to him. By his Honor: I saw him there afterwards.

Cornelius Driscoll saw Ryan at the Caledonian Grounds at eleven o’clock on January 2, and again at noon. Ho was walking about.

Robert Hume was called, but not appearing, it was agreed to put iu his depositions.

Mr Barton at 12.20 commenced his address to the jury, and spoke as follows In his legal experience in this country he had been in throe remarkable cases, the present being the third. The first was a case of murder, iu which one Job Johnson was tried, and twenty-one witnesses, with more or loss particularity, swore - some with absolute certainty, and they all resisted my small powers of cross-examination—-at all events, they swore that Johnson was the man. Undoubtedly that man would have been hung, with the approbation of the whole community, but for one very singular circumstances, viz., that by accident he foil ill in town ; by another accident a man was killed ; by a third accident the man who had been ill was got by the police to serve on a coroner’s jury, and so signed the depositions. That signature saved his life, because the coroner was brought down to town, and he proved beyond the shadow of a doubt

that thd than who feigned the Coroner’s inqulsltlori could riCt have committed V orkey’s murder, which took place at raich a distance, time, and place where it was impossible the accused could have been, rio Johnson was discharged without a stain upon his character, instead of being hung, as he otherwise would, unquestionably have been, but for the remarkable set of circumstances just stated. The next remarkable case was lleicbelt’s, in which the man was charged under most extraordinary circumstances with having burnt bis own premises. In that case, so strong was the evidence that the whole Press seemed to think he was the guilty man, and lie (Mr Barton) thought he was not saying anything improper or unfair when he said that the Judge himself seemed to be perfectly convinced of his guilt; for lie charged strongly against him both times. But there were about that case circumstances — minute it was true—that prevented any jury before whom it was brought, and it was tried several times, being satisfied that tlxe circumstances were such as necessarily proved guilt. Accordingly they came to the conclusion that the evidence as to guilt was not satisfactory. He was discharged. Then came a civil action, and Reichelt was examined, when at once the veil was lifted, and it became perfectly plain to everyone how tho thing occurred. A woman was connected with it. The woman, of course, would take very good care not to lot anybody say anything against her or her character, and the probability to be assumed was that tho prisoner’s counsel felt it to be madness at the time to bring forward the fact, the prisoner not being aide to speak, and that the best tiling was to depend upon the deficiencies of the evidence. The result shewed that counsel, who was their humble servant, was sagacious. Notwithstanding the strong eloquence of Mr James Smith notwithstanding the strong charges of the Judge, one jury disagreed and the other acquitted. But when it came to a civil matter, everyone (no doubt the Judge too) camo to the conclusion that it was as clear then as it had been unsatisfactory before. The third remarkable case was the present. Tho whole case hinged upon Parnell's evidence, and the counsel for the .Crown supplied the motives of the prisoner. Mr Haggitt must have thought that Farrell’s evidence was weak; that he would not be credited as a witness. _ One of the motives which Mr Haggitt relied on, he (Mr Barton, would rely on to show that Ryan did not attempt to kill Farrell, Mr Haggitt must have been driven to a last shift when he put it forward as a motive that, as a monetary transaction, it would pay Ryan to shoot Farrell, and marry his widow. There wore no children, and she would not have a life interest in his property. It was not proved that Farrell had made a will in her favor, and it being so, he told the jury, subject to his Honor’s correction, that, as a matter of law, she would not be entitled to one farthing. The property would go to Farrell’s heir, if there was one ; if not, to the Crown. Then it was not proved that Farrell was entitled to the reward of L3OO, and the suggestion of a public subscription got up by Ryan, who was to head it, was a most extraordinary one—a legal curiosity, and as such worthy of being framed and glazed. Thus, the Crown counsel, in using the suggestion of such a motive as Mrs Farrell’s getting a life interest in the property, had put into his (Mr Barton’s) hands a powerful weapon against himself. As to the letters; did they not prove that the woman was devoted to Ryan —ready to adopt any disguise in order to get to him, and that she was always reproaching him because he would not come to and stay in town? He had only to say “ elope with me,” and she would have gone ; therefore, there was noneed for him to commit murder. Ryan was single, she had no children, and it was only for him to say “fly with me,” and she was ready to go, leaving Farrell to take proceedings in the Divorce Court, to get rid of such a woman. The letters further showed that Ryan was not so strong upon the matter as she was. He left Dunedin, went to Hampden, and gave up a shilling a day to bo away from her. But she kept reproaching him" for staying away, and writing to lliin to come to town, because she could not live without him. But he did not go back ; lie wont to Invercargill, and remained there till lie was discharged from the police. But when he was in town ho was un-ble to resist the temptation that was in his way. She was a young and handsome woman ; she was no doubt very tender to him, and when in town it was quite impossible for him to be there without yielding to tho temptation. He would now come to Farrell’s part in the prosecution, for his motives in this matter were equally to be considered with Ryan’s. Ho (Mr Barton) was not there to defend Ryan’s conduct with Mrs Farrell ; he would not attempt it, for it could not be defended, as it had been wrong; but that was no reason why he should be punished for a crime which he did not commit. There was Farrell’s motive to be looked at: If there was any reason why lie should swear so positively that Ryan shot him. Farrell seemed to have discovered the illicit intercourse that had been going on—at all events, he seemed to have satisfied himself by ocular demonstration as early as May, 1870. He discovered them m a position and in a place where no man’s wife ought to be discovered with an unmarried man without the knowledge of the husband. He burst into the room, and found them considerably apart, at some distance from where he had seen them when he looked through the keyhole, when ho saw her sitting on Ryan’s knee, with his arms around her. The jury must have made up their minds, if Farrell (lid not know of the intercourse, his suspicious must have been very strong; for the next day, according to his own statement, he wrote to Ryan, returning some money lie had lent him, and forbidding him to come near his house again. His mind must have), been filled with terrible and well-grounded jealousy, for they found him watching day by day, and night by night, and watching with cause, because there was no doubt that Ryan was guilty at that time. The letters showed it. His setting watch for Ryan showed that he war, getting more incensed and enraged against the man, until at last they had him watching Ryan about his house—to catch his wife and Ryan in the most faithless of faithless acts, and oii the second watching carrying a loaded revolver with him, with the intention of making Ryan cut off his own ears if he caught him in the act; if he did not, of shooting him. What next happened ? Farrell, himself, told them that his wife was much younger than he ; that from that incongruity of circumstances he felt that it was probable that she would fall in love with some man more of her own age; hut up to then he could not say that his wife had been absolutely unfaithful. But when Ryan went to Hampden—and it was to be assumed that Farrell’s observation of his wife’s conduct, so far as it concerned Ryan, was as close and keen as ever—she was constantly trying to make appointments, asking her lover to come to town, and suggesting a scheme which was to bring them together. Farrell must have been aware from her conduct and her demeanor during the whole of that time that she had something upon her mind. Her letters showed the state of despair she was in—her strong desire to be with Ryan, lie could not bear to read the letters : they affected him a little. They proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that she was ready to go anywhere with Ryan—go through fire or water; through earth, hell, or anywhere else with him; but the feeling on Ryan’s side was not so strong. They knew as men that man’s love did not gather strength as did woman’s: they knew that with men indulgence breeded satiety, while with wojpeu it would breed nothing but inci eased ardor. Ryan’s letter, which was the answer to Farrel’s telegram—which Farrell described as a hot love letter—was certainly hot: but not that of a man who was overhead about it. That was the letter rjad by Farrell to his wife in the presence of her sister, and over which a scene took place. His doing so was a mistake, and had ho been wise ho would not have exposed the wife in the sister’s presence, even had she known what was going on, which she, no doubt, did. That lost him the last chance of her liking him. Mr Barton concluded his address to the jury in defence of Ryan shortly after three o’clock this afternoon—necessarily too late for publication in this evening’s issue. Mr Haggitt at once proceeded to reply. It is expected the case will close to-night. The witnesses in the cases of Qleeson, O’Connell, and Hastings, were directed to be present at the Court to-morrow morning. The witnesses in the remaining cases were discharged attendance until Wednesday next.