SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3174, 23 April 1873, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSION.

Yesterday. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Chapman.)

THE MORAY PLACE SHOOTING CASE

The following are the principal points of bis Honor’s summing up : The first point to which I shall direct your attention is intent. I think, from tho circumstances of the case, you will hardly have any difficulty in coming to the conclusion, and without the least delay', that the intention of the person who fired the pistol shots on the night of the 4th of January really was to assassinate Detective Farrell. No man under such circumstances could emerge from a daik portico, cross the road stealthily, treading softly like a ■woman, fire a shot which was unsuccessful, then fire another and another, and at last having followed his victim for a considerable distance along Moray place—for more than 100 yards—succeed in firing a shot which, had it gone through his lungs, would probably have been fatal—the animus displayed on that occasion by the unknown person, as at present I shall call him—for he is and will he unknown until your decision is arrived at —that person, I say, would hardly have had any other intention than to assassinate Farrell. Dismissing, therefore, what is a first step in the investigation, which will hardly arrest your attention for very long, I come to the main question—Who fired the shots’ There is no doubt whatever, as both the, learned counsel have admitted, that, subject to a number of small circumstances — some of them of a corroborative nature, and some perhaps of a contrary nature—the whole question will turn as to whether Favi’ell is right in telling you that he identified Ryan immediately after the first shot was fired ; and that he has no doubt, whatever,_ that Ryan was the man. If you think his evidence is true : that Farrell was not mistaken, then, undoubtedly, the evidence of one witness is quite sufficient to justify the jury in convicting. But of course if you think under the whole circumstances—the shots having been fired at night—the trepidation of the moment—and that all the other circumstances would enable you to have a reasonable doubt pf Farrell’s evidence, then I need hardly remind you vpu must give the prisoner the benefit of that doubt and find him not guilty. . . . I will call your attention to a few circumstances which strike me, and which may, perhaps, somewhat aid you in coming to your decision. First, as to motive : I need hardly tell you that whore a jury is perfectly convinced of tiie fact having been proved, motive is of no importance whatever. . . . Then, the pecuniary part of the motive is only thrown in as a ipake-weight, because it is quite clear the amount, whatever it might be, could have no effect upon j.£y:iud ftdpd ; could not have been available to him except he bad )/eeu joined in marriage to Mrs Farrell: therefore you *rg invited by the Crown to infer from the whole oil; cumstanccs, and tho past intimacy between Ryan and the woman that there was sufficient motive to induce him to commit the crime. If he were a person of that vicious state of mind as would enable him to commit the crime without remorse or reluctance, undoubtedly that would be sufficient motive for a man to shoot another man, to get that other man’s wife to live with him. But it is quite right to point out, as has been suggested by Mr Barton—a suggestion which 1 give my sanction to your entertaining, and that is all a Judge can do —tlqit the circumstances of what I shall only cajl fpr the present the supposed illicit intercourse between Ryan and Mrs I an ell would create sufficient' 'jpal( i 'us i y > in Farrell’s mind, though while not causing |ijn> tp commit deliberate perjury, as to induce him hj see things through a jaundiced vision-through colored spectacles, as it were-and to jump to the conclusion that it was Ryan who shot him. This is a circumstance you are entitled to take into consideration when mixed motive of this kind is before you. There ary, however, a good many circumstances which militate against that. . . . Now, as to Ins capacity to ccy a man under such circumstances. there plight lie nights in which the light was so sijjall as render it almost impossible to know a pers,py at oven a very little distance, but tbjs was hardly tpecase here. It has been properly suggested by Mr Ha^gitt —and the suggestion seems to be a very reasonable one—that the season of the year was just about the summer solstice, that tho night could not have been so dark as to disable a man from detecting a person who was for a moment, at all events, so close, that he felt the man s hand against his face. I don’t attach much weight to tho pistol shot. . . What I invite you to judge by this is this : whether you think there was light enough, with any artificial light by the lamp or otherwise, to enable Farrell to recognise at arm’s length a man whom lie had known for years ?_ . . Undoubtedly Ryan had the oppoi tuuiiy ; ho was on tho spot at the time. There was nothing inconsistent in Farrell’a statement, or in the statements of the other witnesses as to Ryan’s whereabouts before tho shots were fired. Then what are the circumstances which occurred after wards, what light do they thrown upon the case? Tire hypothesis of the Crown is this; that having shut Farrell. Ryatt marie his way down the right-of-way'into Caul street, passed along Card street into Castle street, and thence to the Water of Leith. He was undoubtedly at the Water of Leith that night; I shall come to time presently. This is r not the only way of going to ; he Water of Leith. liwhjUi He towjurtf

as easy for Ry.ah (supposblg Parrell’s evidence to be correct), .after having delivered the fourth shot—and if he were the person seen by Mrs Walsham —to have passed from Gaol street into Cumberland street, which would have been an easier and bettor way for Mm to have gone to the Leith. It is true he would be more liable to lie observed by persons if he had been running; but he would have had a better chance of getting a cab. One witness says that Ryan reached the Water of Leith at not later than half-past eleven : he fixes the time, which was not later, though it may have been a little earlier, because he observed the clock when ho crossed the road in coming from some other house. Now, it is not certain that the last shot was tired at twenty minutes past. The evidence is that it was about that time ; and if you can gain upon that time in one direction ; if you can make it one, two, or three minutes earlier, and the arrival of Ryan at the Water of Leith so much later, you must put the time of the shooting to fifteen or .sixteen minutes past eleven, which would bo sufficient time for a fast-walking man to get to the Leith ; or at all events would enable a man, partly by walking and partly by riding, to get there ; a fortiori it would enable a man in a cab to get there. It is for you to consider that, coupling with it the circumstances of the alibi. An alibi is the best sort of evidence, if it can be proved to the perfect satisfaction of the jury. It is for you to say whether you consider it a sufficient answer to Farrell’s evidence of identity. . . . There are also several small circumstances that that have been mentioned : these I must leave to you ; but they are of no very great moment. It has been said that the day was wet and drizzling ; sufficiently so to induce one of the witnesses to use an umbrella. But a slight drizzling would not make much impression; and it is quite possible for a man to have passed along Gaol street without being hear 1 by the gaol warder, so that the fact of the warder on duty not hearing, proves nothing. ... It is no evidence for or against the prisoner that no footsteps were found . . . That is all I have to say to you, except to repeat that the whole case lies in Farrell’s evidence. Do you believe that in swearing he identified Ryan on the night in question he is a witness of truth ? You may believe he intends to tell the truth, and yet you may doubt from the various circumstances whether his opportunity of identifying Ryan is sufficient for your satisfaction. If you think that he is a witness of the truth, it is your duty to return a verdict of guilty. If you doubt his testimony and Ids truthfulness, that is if a reasonable doubt is left upon your minds after going through your investigation —if you think under the whole circumstances—the abscence of sufficient light; the trepidation of the moment, and other cimrastances, ho was not in a condition to identify Ryan, then it is competent for you to find him not guilty. A good deal has been said one way or the other about Ryan’s intimacy with Mrs Farrell. You may think that his intercourse with this woman was -wrong: no doubt it was ; but you arc no', trying him for that, though it may possibly come before the Court on a future occasion. Your sworn duty is to say whether, in your opinion, prisoner is guilty of wounding Detective Farrell on January 4, with intent to slay him, and upon that i,sue alone you will consider your verdict.

The jury retired at 4.40 p.m., and at six had agreed on their verdict. At ten minutes to seven they were brought into -court, and delivered the verdict, which was one of not guilty. The prisoner was then discharged. There were only about fifty persons present when the verdict was delivered, and a slight attempt at applause was made, bub was instantly checked.