SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3164, 10 April 1873, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSION.

Yesterday.

(Before his 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. We continue Mr Barton’s address :

They had no exact knowledge of what that scene was; but was it possible that I‘anell had any other feeling than dread of_ the man whom he found still continued illicit intercourse with his wife, and that her visit to Hampden had been made the means of its being continued ? At an earlier stage he had no evidence of downright guilt, but he felt there was such disparity of years between himself and his wife as to place a barrier between him and possible happiness. Even then harrell was bitter against the man, and earned with him a pistol, determined at any rate to mutilate him. Coming then to the scene brought before them by the evidence, attempting to show that Ryan shot Farrell .—On the 4th of the mouth, Faired was going home after having seen Kyan. Farrell said lie always used to speak fair to Ryan, for the sake of his wife’s and Ins own characters. In his (Mr Barton’s) opinion Jarrell was more desirous to preserve Ins own character than his wife’s, and felt more afraid to be looked down upon by the public as wrong, than he felt as being wronged. He knew Ryan was out of the police force, but he continued pn friendly terms with him ; there was no appearance f,f }U will on the part of cither of the men towards each other ; no appearance of speaking ill behind each others hack. As he had before remarked, Ryan would have no motive for ill fceling-hc had all he wanted. Farrell had every motive to do so for his own credit and that of his wife. Ryan, < ,nt <>f the police force, was living in town. 1< ari oil must have Jniown, however, that however fair his wife’s conduct might appear, illicit intercourse was still going bn—this letter received m February must have kibowft him tfcat; «vwy

time he saw Ryan he must have said “that man vill bo about rfiymace to-night or to-morrow,” and would have felt inclined to'shoot him if possible. Probably Eyan was not guilty of mmg-doing, for be was endeavoring to get into business elsewhere than in Dunedin. Uo went to Pigroot to buy the hotel there. He could only state what he received from the prisoner’s instructions—he Wns endeavoring to purchase the interest of G. Coombc, at the Woolshed—that would have taken him out of town. He was also negotiating for obtaining a hotel in the North-East_ Valley, so that ho was serious about getting into business in the public-house line. Ex-policemen seemed desirous of getting into that class of business. That was not known to Farrell, apparently, ami when lie saw him at the European Hotel he did not doubt he must have felt that Farrell had the same feelings towards him, as he had when he presented a pistol at his head. The proha bilit}' was that Farrell had stronger desires to put Ryan out of the way than Ryan had to do so to Farrell. He now came to the singular part of the case. In fact, the case was as singular as that of Reichelt or Job Jorison. He might not be so fortunate as to lead the jury to ffocl satisfied tht Eyan was not guilty, but he thought there were circumstances which should lead them not to believe those motives ; but yet they were asked to believe Farrell. He (Mr Barton) said no reasonable motive had been assigned to lead Ryan to enter upon such a crime at the time and place where it was committed. Eyan, in a perfectly cool and quiet manner, was playing at billiards that clay. There was nothing in his manner nor demeanor to indicate that he contemplated such a crime. He was either one of the bravest, most daring, or coolest men that ever lived, if he was guilty; but circumstances went far to show that he was not. In the evening, afterplaying at billiards, lie walked up tire town, where plenty of people could see him, whereas, had he been contemplating murder, he would have been interested in keeping out of the way of communication with anyone. He was quietly walking up and down not very long before the time. That was not the act of a man who had coolly arranged an act that must be cleverly done. He was seen by Ennis ten minutes before eleven o’clock, at the very corner of the street where he contemplated doing the act, and apparently without anything with him. His pockets did not appear to be bulged, which they would have been had they contained a four-barrelled revolver. He did not think M‘Williams gave his evidence very fairly, for he tried to dodge his (Mr Barton's) question, when he asked if there was a man with Ryan. He thought there was no doubt a man was standing talking coolly to Ryan. Then M ‘Williams’s statement was that Ryan was dressed in clothes that appeared dark. M'Williams went away, and no_ more was heard of Ryan, except that, according to Ennis, he left him going towards the University, and M'Williams said that a few minutes after he saw Ryan balking to a man, between the Criterion and Herbert, Haynes, and Co.’s, in the opposite direction. He thought it was evident Eyan was waiting oil the pathway for a conveyance to take him to the Water of Leith, where he had business to transact. He (Mr Barton) was in this difficulty : Eyan was seen a few minutes before eleven o’clock —the crime took place twenty minutes after ; but as he had allowed himself to be seen by Ennis, who lived next to Farrell, who was acquainted with him, was it possible Eyan should have in his mind to shoot Farrell like a dog at that time ? Would lie not have walked anywhere—to the Water of Leith or anywhere to prove an alibi— rather than shew himself within a possible few minutes of the commission of the crime, although he had prepared everything for a run across Gaol street? Would he not have made a straight run for the Water of Leith, and contrived that a number of persons should lie ready to swear they saw him, and thus seek to prove a concocted aiihit No man in his senses, and especially an ex-sergeant of police, would have left in his box the damning evidence of Mrs Farrell’s letters, and the order on the Bank of New South Wales for L 250, when he was about to commit a crime like that. He would have got it cashed at the Bank, and thus have been ready to make a rush in the event of not being successful, instead of leaving himself absolutely without money. He had only eight pounds in his pocket. Then he had several rings on his fingers, and a gold watch chain, although if he meant to shoot Farrell he must have known he might be engaged in a deadly struggle, and one of them seized to prove liis identity. Would not these have been left behind in the arrangement of crime that must have been planned weeks before. Then, on his return to the hotel, it was said it was locked up. The police had possession of the keys ; but Eyan never attempted to get into the room, although there would have been no difficulty, for almost all the locks in the premises could be opened by common keys, so much were they alike. Had the thought struck him, he would have said, “Good God, those letters will destroy me. ” But when arrested, he was surprised, and never thought of them, but his first idea was to go to the police office and clear the matter up. Was not that the act of an innocent man. He met Inspector Mallard in the street and went along with Dr Eeinier and Kclighcr. Mallard said he expressed great surprise, and in every other respect his deneanourwas that of an innocent man. He was cool and collected, and when the charge was taken down he said, “ Well, this is a pretty charge, certainly.” That was the manner of an innocent man. Then, next day, when ho was asked for the key of Ms box, he thought of the letters, and said to Mallard, “You have no right to the key, and I will not give it.” He (Mr Barton) thought he had shewn that the very fact of the letters being left in existence, Avaa striking circumstantial evidence that he had never contemplated the crime. Before proceeding further, he would call attention to the evidence of Hume, who, although examined before the Mayor, was not called. (Mr Barton read the deposition of the evidence given by Hume). Farrell said he had a bag of new potatoes and a stick under his arm, and while going across, opposite the Masonic Hall, a figure came across the lights that he thought to be a woman’s. He judged that from the step. Going on, he stated that he kept continually looking round, and when going across to Park and Guide’s, a little above the right-of-way, right opposite the lamp, he turned round, and was shot at. Previously to that statement, he said it was a man, and was able to tell you how he was dressed, to some extent. Turning suddenly round, the smoke of the pistol entered his mouth. That report must have gone suddenly into Ms ear. He (Mr Barton) never was shot at, hut he thought all must be conscious it would be a very confusing affair. Yet Farrell said at that instant he recognised Ryan, and said, “ Good God, Ryan, are you going to murder me ?” It was a singular fact that in that confusion lie should recognise Ryan, and that he should throw a loaded stick at him instead of striking Mm with it, although the shots did not cause him to drop Ms potatoes. Then he said the man before firing again put the revolver to his right thigh. This was not likely to have been done by Ryan, an ex-policeman, accustomed for ten years to firearms—a trained nnu). Farrell, having a loaded stick, it was strange ho did not strike the person who tired. Then Farrell said the man Ilcitl lus luit cocked Jit the l)aclc of lii& licjki, and turned his face so as to show as much as possible in the light; but the gas lamp was proved to be a kerosene one, and while all the other witnesses swore the night was dark, Farrell alone said it was light. But nobody stopped to pick up that stick. Why was not evidence given as to where it was found, and who found it, No evidence was given as to how it again fell into F arrell’s possession: Had tliqt evidence been given, it would have been corroboration of some kind. Then why was not Hume called? He said it was a dark night* A. iu*ui came up the back and Hume asked him what was the matter, and was told a uian was shot, and he believed it was Farrell, almost at that very spot. That man did not appear to ha\ c been called, It must be remembered that Fairell had long Leon a detective, and it was therefore useless for Mm to say that in the course of his duty he made no enemies. Home man might have left the gaol, after having been punished there, and, with malice in his heart, he might have determined to make F’arrcll suffer for it and shot him. If F’arrcll did not_ know who shot him, the man he would like to put it upon was Eyan, for he had wronged him worse than any shot at him. I‘ ieu must he remembered that when F arrell was riiot at lie kept the potatoes in his hand and ran to the light. He should have thought Ms instinct would have been to run for the darkest snot to escape being seen and hit by another shot. But Farrell ran towards the houses, calling out “ Ryan is murdering me.” With one exception, although numbers heard the cry only one heard Ryan’s name, and instead of rushing into Stuart street, where he was likely to meal men, 1)0 ran between Claremont House and Albion House. The shooting ivas !U 4 singular place in a singular wty, and Fir Refiner said at once the wound was not dangerous, and although Mr Hocken said Farrell was in a state „f collapse, the evidence showed Mm to be strong, vigorous, ami telling everybody Ryan had shot him. Various discrepancies shewed that people might wake little mw-statemente for the

purpose of invalidating the rest of their evidence, Farrell, after entering the house, sent one persdii iti orid direction, another in another, lie did not say he was anxious to send for a doctor, hut sent for a priest, although he must have known he was not going t<> die. The evidence of the witnesses who said tho night was dark was confirmed by Carey, a man accustomed to be out at night and w r atoh at the > Gaol. He said there had been rain, which Farrell admitted, and yofc he recognised a man at a singular moment. It was a pity corroborative evidence could not be found. Mrs Wal«ham caught sight of a man going up the right-of-way as he passed two lights into the lane, and she said the coat produced seemed to be lighter than that man wore. However, the man must have disappeared somcw’here, and he could have got into Farrell's house that way ; but on tho supposition that ho ran on to the soft swampy ground in Gaol street, and started for tho Water of Leith, there was a warder on guard every night at tlie Gaol, who must have heard the four shots and been excited by them, especially as the night was still. Carey said he heard cries, but nobody was called from the Gaol, although they must or must not have heard footsteps. A ivarder would at any rate be likely to know the exact time, as he was accustomed to call tide hours. But as nobody heard the cries or the footsteps at the Gaol, where did that person go? Carey said, in going across from Farrell’s to his owm house in Cumberland street, he did not go across that swamp, for it was dangerous through carts lying about. It was necessary to draw attention to those little, things, for they tested Farrell’s credibility. The clothes were produced and the boots, but they were as clean us a man’s could be expected to he who bad been walking about all the evening, and to the Water of Leith. In fact, all the circumstantial evidence was against Farrell. It was admitted by Mallard that he had positive evidence of his having been down there ; and he had proof beyond a shadow of doubt he was there on business, and for a fair and proper purpose. Hewson left the force with a good character, and he did not deny he was given to going after women. Many were Rwilty of that who Would not falsify themselves in a witness-box, and Hewson had no conceivable motive why lie should say respecting Ryan that he had seen him there that night; but it was for business purposes. A number of witnesses said the same, Duncan said the same, and so did Crafts, the broker. He was there at a reasonable time, and a bargain was struck, and by the evidence they retired into a room for the purpose of talking about the business. He thought everything tended to show that Ryan was not the man who shot Farrell. He might be asked who did it ? It was not for him to speculate, nor for the jury. He did not know. It must not be forgotten that Bain was not called, who seemed to have been at Farrell’s house. Those circumstances should be remembered by the jury. If anybody had a motive to do the deed, Mrs Farrell had, for she showed she was living a life of misery. He did not see they conld arrive at any other conclusion than that, so far as Ryan was concerned, motive was wanting, and therefore they would conclude he did not do it. The Crown Prosecutor said his learned friend had endeavored to show that Farrell’s evidence was a deliberate falsehood from beginning to end ; that Farrell was not to be believed ; that Ryan did not shoot at him. He wondered he had not gone the length of saying he was not shot. He remembered a jury being called to impure into the cause of death of a man who had committed suicide. All the doors and windows were Cut, and he had written on a paper that no one was to blame, for he had done the deed with his own hand. In life he was known to be an inveterate liar, and the jury found that lie was killed hy some person or persons unknown. The deceased was known to be such a liar, therefore they did not believe him when he wrote that he had killed himself. They went even so far as to say they did not believe the man was dead, until after some days, during which the body was not interred. _ At last they concluded he committed suicide in a moment of mental aberration, because be said he had taken his own life. He never was known to tell the truth, and, therefore, his mind must have been wandering when lie did it. Even if they were a jury of that description, Mr Barton's argument must fail. If not, then Farrell’s evidence was conclusive, that the prisoner was the man who shot him. The defence was two-fold—a sort of alibi was attempted to be proved— that is, it was attempted to be shewn that Ryan could not have committed the offence, as he was somewhere else at the time ; and next that Farrell was not to be believed when he said he recognised Ryan, but that through jealousy, for which he had too much cause, he assumed it was Ryan who shot him. There was nothing in that letter of the 14th February, 1872, to show that Farrell know that any intercourse was still subsisting between Ryan and his wife. The letters show his wife induced him to believe_that, if ho forgave her on that occasion, all intercourse with Ryan would cease. It was, therefore, right to suppose that his state of mind towards Ryan had become quiescent. Or, supposing it was concluded that Farrell suspected Ryan still to be his rival, they had evidence of his conduct on previous occasions with regard to Ryan, and he would ask whether there was anything in his conduct to indicate that he would act as had been suggested ? or that, because he did not recognise the man, he would have sworn it was Ryan ? Farrell’s conduct deserved the greatest possible credit, although his learned friend made a joke of it. Farrell must be a highminded man to act as he had done. It would have served Ryan precious well right to have made him out off his own ears. What would the jury have dona, having a four-barrelled revolver in their hands under like circumstances? Would any one of them have acted as Farrell had done ? If they did not approve of his conduct, could they believe he had invented the story? Mr Barton asked why did not Farrell strike with the loaded stick, instead of throwing it, and in the same breath he said they were five yards distant from each other. How was it possible to strike at five yards distance ? It seemed the only course that could bo adopted. Suppose any of the jury going home, suspecting nothing, what would he have done placed in such circumstances as Farrell was in? It was well to think ho would have rushed on the assassin and knocked the pistol upwards. That looked easy, but half the men who talked in that way would have shown less courage than Farrell. It was asked why was not evidence given of the finding of Farrell’s stick, as that would have been corroborative of his statement, as if a man’s truthfulness depended upon corroboration of that character. But to show the fallacy of such an argument, imagine that loaded stick thrown with the force with which Farrell could throw it-where would it be picked up? Did they imagine it would be at the place where it was thrown? He should think not; or being thrown as he described, and the man lifting up his arms to ward it off, where would it be found ? Would it be in the direction in which it was sent? Would it not very likely have gone over the fence into Matthews’s garden, or at a great distance ? He did not know where it was found, nor did it matter. If they disbelieved Farrell’s evidence on that point, did they believe he had been shot at, at alj ? Jt had been askpd wl)y did not tho Grown examine Homo. Simply because he knew nothing whatever about tho case. He contradicted every other witness, only hoard three shots, and placed them differently from every other witness. He said a man told him Farrell was shot between the second and third shot, although Farrell had not then been shot at all. Witnesses were called in the inferior Court to ascertain what evidence could be given, and if it was found unreliable, it was a saving of time and expense not bo caU tlbim in that Cqqrt. The only solution of the discrepancy of his evidence was that Hume was in a tremendous fright, that he went and hid himself until the firing, was over. That was the conclusion he came to. His learned friend said that Farrell, having been long in the police force, must have made enemies, and failing to recognise the assassin, fixed on Ryan; but, recollect, it was from the first he recognised that man. They must remember when the shot was fired the smoke went into his mouth, and not one of them could recollect a night on which they could not recognise a person so close to them as he must have been. It had been insinuated—Mr Barton dared not put it so —that Mi’s Farrell had shot Farrell. But that could not he, as it was clearly proved it was she who opened the door to Farrell, She was bad enough, but, he trusted, would not ha capable of uoiuniittiug such a crime as that, No woman, having missed her first shot, would have followed Farrell up ia the way he was followed. It had been said that, in the event of Farrell’s death, Mrs Farrell would notbo entitled to the rents and profits of his property; but he told them that Farrell, having real property, she would be entitled to dower, or a third of the profits. It had- also been said Ryan had only to say “come,” and Sirs Farrpll would have eloped with him, consequently there was no peep tg iqqrdpr to get her, But it was not so' easy tq get away. Was Ryan in a position to go away ? He did not suppose he was so infatuated with her, or indeed she with him, as to run the risk of starvation. Ryan wanted to get a hotel, and when they cousidewi what money he might have pro*

become hie wife, motive Xoi thefiiime •mispkm. „T*king the whole into tyfirfdftration, ■■■& submitted he jSed made out hi* case.- There 1 was no reason, and conld ho none, for, disbelieving Farrell. If they discarded his evidence, they ought not to convict.

His Honor then charged the jury. He said that a great deal of time bad been occupied, and Very properly, in giving evidence as to what motive the accused would have to commit the crime with which he was charged. Two hypotheses were put forward by the Grown Prosecutor. One was that Ryan had a strong motive to commit this crime, inasmuch as he had conceived an unlawful affection for Mrs Farrell —that a great deal of improper communications had at any rate taken place between them ; tiiat they were both animated by illicit love for eacli other; and that Ryan was consequently desirous of getting rid of Farrell, in order that he might have undisturbed possession of Farrell’s wife. In addition to that, another motive was stated, viz., that if he had succeeded in getting rid of Farrell, and gaming undisturbed possession of his wife, not only would he ha ve had the means of gratifying his unlawful affection or passion for her, but that he would have derived pecuniary advantage from the act. There was, no doubt, sufficient evidence on both those points for the jury to take into consideration. First of all, the love-letters discovered in Ryan’s box left no doubt that an improper intercourse had existed at some time —perhaps not at a very recent period, but prior to the year 1870, and up to a later period—between Ryan and Mrs Farrell, and it was also shown that Farrell himself possessed some real and personal property and some rights to personal property, facts that Ryan was acquainted with. It was not necessary to go into minute details of what those rights were ; it was sufficient that the evidence was presented to the jury. If they were of opinion Ryan was under the impression at the time that Farrell was possessed of such rights, that would let in the motive which had been indicated, subject to some observations which he would presently offer. The first observation was; A man might be charged with a crime, and in some cases the evidence agninst him might appear very strong, but his high character and the whole circumstances of his previous life would be such that a jury would be very indisposed to convict, unless there was some strong motive for committing the crime. Whether or not the motive in this case was sufficient was for the jury to judge. Lest any prejudice should have arisen in their minds, on account of the illicit connect tion between Mrs Farrell and the prisoner, he reminded them that they were not to punish Him for that. Disgusted as they might be with his conduct, and particulary with that of Mrs Farrell, they were not to punish him for his faults, still less for Mrs Farrell’s faults. To put the matter in such a direction as to convince the jury whether or not there was sufficient motive, it was necessary to push it a little further. As Mr Barton had suggested, it cut two ways. Admitting that it was sufficient to induce a person of ill-regulated mind to commit murder, it also furnished a motive why a man in Farrell’s position might either commit perjury or have his mind so biassed and affected by justifiable jealousy as to make him believe it was Ryan who shot him. There was no doubt at all that Farrell was fired at, and that the fourth shot struck him and inflicted a consider; able wound. The suggestion of counsel for the prisoner that it might have been self inflicted was absurd, and one which no jury would entertain for a moment. It was inflicted by somebody, and with some intention. Who was the person ? He would come to that presently. What was his intention? That might be concluded from the act itself. Who the person was, was at that instant unknown, and would bo unknown until the jury returned their verdict. He who tired the first shot, which missed ; who followed it up by running after Farrell and firing a second ana a third, which also missed ; who, when Farrell got off the footpath, crossed the road with him, and who, when lie got into the right-of-way, fired a fourth shot, which was effectual, must have been animated by such determination and such criminal intent that the jury would have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion, and that with very little trouble, and almost without inquiry, that he intended to kill him. The whole question would, therefore, turn upon the inquiry as to who fired the first shot, and that would turn on some little circumstances, some of them confirmatory and some weakening, but principally upon Farrell’s evidence. The qnestio n for the jury to determine was whether they Iwerc disl>ose(l to believe Farrell’s evidence when he said —and he swore it very distinctly, without the least doubt or apparent hesitation in his own mind—that Ryan w'as the man wlio fired the pistol. The first question was, whether there w'as light enough to cable him to identify Ryan. The jury would recollect that Farrell said that there was a lamp opposite to where the first shot was fired. The foreman wished to know whether the lamp was lighted or not; he had UQ evidence that R was. ' His Honor referred to his notes, and read Farrell’s evidence, which was that it was lighted, and that the light shone on Ryan. There was also the pistol flash, and he asked them to consider whether there was not, under the circumstances, light enough to enable a person circumstanced as Farrell was to identify him, even without the aid of the lamp. The night was described as having been dark —one of the witnesses said it was darker than usual —and they would recollect that Ryan was a man whq had been in the police force fqr a number of yearg—served under' the same Commissioner with Farrell; besides that, and until the unfortunate occurrence with Mrs Farrell, had frequently visited Farrell’s house, and had even gone their afterwards i that Farrell w r as in the habit of seeing him, probably every day, certainly repeatedly during the week, and the jury should put it to themselves whether the night was likely to be so dark, that if a man woia within ami’s length of one, when you looked into his face you could not recognise him, although you had knowui him for years. If they were of opinion that Farrell had committed perjury, wliich would be a very violent opinion under the circumstances, then his evidence as to the lamp light, the pistol flash, and his identifying Ryan was valueless—and taking the whole of tne evidence into consideration, it was for the jury to say whether the means of identification, so as to enable Farrell to swear as positively as he did, were such as would enable any of themselves, m like circumstances, to identify a acquaintance. He wquld nc*t mention the cirnpnstances that tended to confirm or weaken Farrell’s testimony. One confirmatory circumstance was that Ryan was seen not far from the spot where the offence was committed —about a quartcr-of-an-hour before, from which time nothing was known of him until he was seen at the Water of Leith. The circumstance of Ryan being seen by Byford was not of much weight; as, having been a policeman for years, he must have, of necessity, have known the locality almost as well as anj r one. Besides, two witnesses gave evidence of having seen him at the Caledonian Ground about the time referred to by Byford. But whichever evidence the jury gave credence ta matter v/fts of very little weight, Perhaps ihorQ important evidence, if the jury believed it, was that of the two persons who were drawn from Craft’s hotel. If they believed they were witnesses of the truth, and that, consequently, they were not interested in fixing the time, it did no doubt shake the other testimony as to Ryan being on the spot. They would recollect Ryan had been seen talking to a man in Princes street at five minutes past eleven, and it would not have been easy for him to rush to the other end of the town, unless he jumped into a cap and was driven there i and theri- was no evidence that he arrived at the Water of Leith in one. The witnesses might have been mistaken ns to time, without it being assumed that they were, concocting a story in order to establish a sham alibi. It W'as possible for a man to have been in Princes street at fiva minutes past eleven; to have been on the spot where the shots were fired at 11.20, and still to have been at the Water of Leith not very long afterwards. It was for the jury to say whether that evidence cast a doubt upon Farrell’s direct testimony that Ryan was the man who fired the shot at him. _ Another slight circumstance to be taken into consideration was that no revolver was found along with the ammunition in Ryan’s box. Had a clean pistol been found side by side with the' ammunition, it would have been evidenci' in }iis favor; bad a foul one been found, if would have bean strong evidence against him. From the faot of no pistol having been found; the jury were asked to draw the inference that Ryan, after committing the act, made his escape, rushed down to the harbor, and, passing along Cumberland or Castle streets, had thrown the weapon into the swamp in that neighborhood. Mention was also made of Ryan* money, and some property; but the matter waa of very slight importance. Affcr al|, Ihe.y came bkck tp tho firfci question—W’as or was not Farrell right in saying that Ryan was the man whom he recognised as having fired the first shot, because if he tired the first there was very little doubt that he fired the others ? It was the; first, step that was the most difficult; if they got over that) the rest was very plain,

Without Farrell committing perjury; if they came to the conclusion that ho was mistaken, there was an end of the case. But if they be liovecl him to be a witness of the truth, and that lie was light iu attributing to Ryan the firing of this shot, it was competent to them on his evidence alone to return a verdict of guilty. But, if they had any reasonable doubt, the prisoner was entitled to it. Mr Bax ton had commented on Farrell not having rushed at the man and struck him with the heavy stick he had Some men, possessing average courage would, immediately the shot was delivered, have rushed forward, on to the attack as it were and have endeavoured to knock the man down with the stick ; others, like Farrell, would have thought the best way was to take to their heels and run for it. A man's evidence was not to be doubted because he did not under the most trying circumstances take the wisest, best, and most courageous course. If he (the learned Judge) had been in the same position, and thought running for it was the best thing to do, he would have done so; therefore, he did not consider a man wanting in courage because of flying from danger, when his judgment told him that was the best way of escape. These were trifling circumstances, which, when examined, only brought them back to the main question, was or was not the prisoner the man who fired the first shot ? Mr Barton caUed his Honor’s attention to Sub-inspector Mallard’s evidence, that lie would not be sin-prised to find ammunition in the box of every police officer in the Province, and that when they left they gave up their arms ; and to the evidence of prisoner’s demeanour when charged with the offence. His Honor did not consider demeanor to have the slightest bearing on the case. He thought the jury would have taken the circumstance into consideration without his aid. The jury retired at about five o’clock, and at eleven p.m., not being able to agree, were locked up for the night. This Day. At a quarter to ten o’clock the jury were brought into Court, and not being able to agree were discharged. MAN SL All OUTER. John Gleesou was iudictecl for having, at Naseby, on March 5, unlawfully killed one Walter Mornington. The facts of the case shortly stated are these : On the afternoon of the Ist ultimo, two men. named Mornington and Richards, when coming across a gully from the direction of the township ol N aseby, and being under the influence of liquor, met a man named John Gleeson coming down the gully, carrying a bundle of scrub j and after having some words with him they commenced to fight. When a few blows had been ex* pbanged, Gleeson knocked Mornington down, and then went away to his hut, close by. Some men who had seen the fight, and not observing Mornington getting up, went to where he was lying, and on lifting him, found fliro to be in a dying state. Dr Dick was sent for, and oa reaching the spot, ordered his removal to a tent, where, on examining him, he pronounced him to be dead. The medical evidence went to show that the blow itself could not have caused death ; the back of deceased’s head exhibited marks which must have been caused by coming into contact with some hard substance. The prisoner defended himself in a short speech, in which he alluded to the fact of his having been arrested in 1871 on a groundless charge of insanity. He complained that after being set at liberty and returning to Naseby, he was constantly insulted and interfered with by the deceased and Ids companion, and Sergeant M’Cluskey never gave him any protection. Ho also complained that Sergeant WCluskey had subjected him to persecution; that he was never told Mornington w’as dead until be was arrested; and that he was never asked if he had any witnesses. He declared he was as innocent as any man who had ever stood in the dock.

The jury, after a short retirement, returned a verdict of not guilt}', and the prisoner was discharged.

OBTAINING MONEY UNDER FALSE PRETENCES Arthur Edward Hastings was indicted for having, at Lawrence, on March 4, obtained the sum of L2, by means of a valueless cheque. He was undefended. The facts of the case are these i On the evening of the 4th, ppsofle* went to a Mr Arm*trosg, keeper and Cobb and Co’s agent at Lawrence, and asked for a coach ticket for Tokamairiro, in payment of which he presented a cheque for L2. Prisoner afterwards wrote to Armstrong, informing him that the cheque wa< drawn on the wrong bank, but that he would be back on the following Saturday. In consequence of this communication Armstrong kept it for three weeks, when he presented it, and if V a 3 r®* turned marked ‘ 1 no account. Op M arch 23, Armstrong again gaw prisoner, and spoke to bim about tho cheque. The latter said he would make the matter all right when he went to town, but he insisted on having the matter settled then. As he did not settle, Armstrong gave information to the police. It was proved by the bank clerk that prisoner never had an account. The prisoner’s defence was that hp expected to get money at Tokamairiro, and intended tq pay it into the bank there. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and prisoner, who gave his age as 28, was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment with hard labor. The same prisoner was further indicted for having at Lawrence, on March 4, endeavoured to obtain the sum of L2 5s from one George Leston, by means of a yaluelpss cheque. He pleaded g\ulty, md wa« sentenced to fflqufbs’’ imprisonment, LA.ROENY. Maurioe O’Connell was indicted for having stolen one gold watch, the value of LlO, and one gold chain, value L 3 10s, the property of the Rev. Mr Baird, Palmerston. Mr Stout defended. The prosecutor, who is the Presbyterian minister at Hampden, went to bed about 11 o’clock on the night named in the indictment, putting an open-faced gold watch on the mantle-shelf. On waking in the morning about five o’clock he locked for the watch, but it was gone. On looking at the house he ascertained that the front dqoy had been shut, but the daoir had' only been latched, anj that it could have opened by the slightest puff of wind, Tho windows were Mso shut with the exception of the study. He never saw the watch till it was produced iu the Resident Magistrate’s Court on the 18th February. Sergeant Smyth overheard a conversation between the prisoner and another man relative to the wa’ch, which aroused his suspicions, and induced him to look at the Police Gazette, and subsequently to arrest the prisoner, who, on being charged with the theft, made three different assertions, via., that he bought it from Mr Hislop, watchmaker, in Dunedin ; that be bought it from another man; and that it belonged to his father. Mr Stout submitted that there was no case to go to the jury, on account of the lapse of time. Prisoner bought a silver watch from Mr Hislop, as had been stated, but he changed with a man who had a gold one, giving him the difference in value in money, lie called L. Moore, who said : I am manager for Sir F. D. Bell at Waihemo. Prisoner was ip h\s employ from the 17th February, and left on the I2th October,' 18y2. I purchased a silver froin Mr Hislop for the priavmer. By Mr Haggitt; Prisoner might have left the station without my knowledge, but it is very improbable. He could not ha Ye gone to Hampden. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged.