SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3634, 15 October 1874, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTING. Wednesday, October 14. (Before bis Honor Mr Justice Chapman and a Common Jury.) Geo. Campbell, in cross-examination, said that when he aud his wife (who was stewardess of the vessel) went on board they brought three gallons of whisky with them.. A s long as the whisky lasted he was certainly able to do his work. \\ itness was brutally used ky one of the men and by the captain. He did not remember his wife flourishing a belaying-pin about on one occasion. Witness did not remember the second mate taking a belaying-pin away from his wife, aud sepa rating witness and the sailors when they were all fighting. Witness’s wife went to the captain to get bis protection but. instead of protecting , witness, the captain joined in the fray. Witness threw some of his whisky overboard. He used to give the second mate, as well as the others, a glass of whisky occasionally. After witness’? whisky wept overboard, there was certainly uo other whisky drunk. The captain took good care to keep his drinkables under lock and key. In cross examination, the witness stated he did not think he had a row with the prisoner during the whole of the voyage. He entertained no ill will or feeling against him whatever. Margaret Campbell, stewardess, stated that she was awakened by an altercation between the second mate and Green shortly before the latter went overboard. IShe corroborated the evidence of the other witnesses as to the words made use of by Dodd and Green on that occasion. In cross examination the witness stated she remembered one of the crew giving her husband a “licking’’ on one occasion. Mie did not seize a belaying-pin to give the sailor a “ licking,” but she was going to when the second mate stepped her. The sailor was going to murder he* husband, and the cap tain also struck the latter on the same occa don. The captain wanted to shut witness up at another time, but for what reason she did not know. He did not charge witness with taking his liquor, Thursday, October 15.

The charge -against Dodd was continued, the following additional evidence being given

Charles Brown, first-mate of the Oneco, repeated the evidence given by him at the Magisterial Inquiry at Port Chalmers, and added; Prisoner tpld him that he was so much annoyed and by the captain, who urged him to do all sorts of bad things, that ha was almost persuaded to jump overboard himself. By iVir Stout : You and the captain have had some disputes ?—Yes Do you remember him refusing to allow you to go on the watch for one week ?—I remember it quite wpll. And the captain gave as his reason for that conduct t.q you that you had relieved the second mate too late ? —I beg to differ ; his reason was that I was lighting my pipe. When you should have been on deck ’—Well, that is the sum and substance of it. Now I will give you the whole conversation.—Mr Stout objected.— Witness: Then I will pn another occasion. I have the date in my logbook. The quarrel has ended; as I bear enmity to np man. —By Mr Haggitt: There had been no differences between me and the prisoner. Witness : Your Honor ; can I have fifteen minutes to address the Court?—(Laughter.) His Honor :. No.

Witness : If you don't have (t {mre you shall have it somewhere else. There snail be justice done to the prisoner. I consider it a duty incumbent on any principled man. His Honor : If there is any fact in prisoner’s behalf, you had better communicate it to his counsel. Witness (as he left tbe box, to Mr Stout; 1 will see you bye-and-bye.—(Laugh-ter.) Sergeant Neil said that prisoner told him that he was a native of Portuguese Cove, fifteen miles from Halifax, Nova Scotia, .and that he was not an American citizen. _ Stout; Seeing that your Honor has decided that the citizenship of prisoner is not material, no evidence ought to be now given by the Crown. His Honor said the evidence might be taken for what it was worth. Witness then said, in answer to Mr Stout, that Captain Henry laid the information against prisoner, and that he was arrested on board the American barque Oneco. By Mr Haggitt; She Was then lying in the stream at Port Chalmers. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr Stout said he did not intend, to call witnesses.

The Crown Prosecutor did not think it a case in which it was his duty to address the jury a second time. His Honor would doubtless address the jury on law points. Mr Stout then addressed the jury. He said he thought that, judging Irom the remarks made towards the close by the Crown Prosecutor, no such grave charge as was made in the indictment would be proved, as he said it was for the jury to consider whether it was murder or man* slaughter. He would not have put it to the jury in suoh a hypothetical„ way had he not known that, with the evidence on his hands,' he could only prove a charge of manslaughter, Therefore he (Mr Stout)

would only address himself as to whether it was a charge of murder or manslaughter or of man-laugher or not guilty, and ho would atk them nob to have their minds biassed owing to the of evidence introduced into this • asc as to the misdeeds on board the Oneco. Because they knew that there had been wrong doing on bo .rd this barque they ought not to visit all punishment eu the prisoner, because he was pi iced in the box by the captain. They would see that the mate aud others did nob look upon the prisoner as the guilty party, but owing to tjbe information being laid against him by the captain cf the ship he was made the scapegrace of what was done on board the Oneco. He would not waste time in arguing anything about the question of murder. Uhe law required that before a mau could be found guilty of that crime there must be malice aforethought Before a man cou d be guilty of murder, there required to. l>e some intention to commit crime. Had Dodd intended to deprive Green of his life, would he have told him to go from the studs to amidships ?. Ihere was conclusive evidence that he had not been put upon the gfttltfivs for the purpose of taking away his* life. It was strange that Sharpe forgot to mention the first part of the conversation j indeed all the witnesses were oblivious of 'that fact, -*s ♦hey were of all others that could be urged on the prisoner’s behalf. Before going -to the main fact, he mighc note this : if the man was guilty of murder would he hot have seized the opportunity of escape afforded him by the pilotboat ? Had the jury ever heard it recorded any wher,; of a mau with a guilty conscience, knowing that he had no witnesses and would be the scape-goat of the ship, not endeavoring to escape. The two main facts to be proved to establish a charge of manslaughter, were: firstly and he did not place much reliance upon that—that the mau was dead, and that before a person could be convicted there must be clear aud unequivocal proof that the alleged crime was committed ; the other point was that prisoner put deceased overboard. He asked them if the man’s being struck over the hands and heels with the belaying-pin, and while he had hold of the backstay and sheerpole, was sufficient to put him overboard, and relied on their answer. He put it to them as sensible meu, whether striking Green with that instrument was sufficient to knock him over ? The evidence was direct, and they must not infer anything. The question of pique or ill-feeling being entertained towards Green by the prisoner was swept away by two facts. He had been set to do the lightest work ; and this important fact—that he wa> not i he only man sent to the gallows, and that he was not told to stand there. The jury were not to decide whether the crew or officers were right. There was not a tittle of evidence to show that the mate put deceased overboard. Hardly two witnesses agreed in the main details, and ail the crew evidently had a down on the prisoner. The first mate had pretended that he sympathised with him, but if he had any sympathy for him, would he have detailed all toe conversations on board the ship ? The constable had admitted that he had only related the principal porfcious of what prisoner had said. The police thought that if au offence was committed it was their duty to get someone convicted • hence only that dam igiag to the prisoner had’ been given. Before tney could find prisoner guilty of murder, the jury must be satisfied thas the man was dead, and that he was knocked overboard with the belaying-pin. If the drowning was accidental, their verdict would be not guilty. He (Mr Stout) was not one of those who appealed to a jury’s sentiment or sympathy ; but he considered this a case calling for their loudest sympathy. The prisoner was a stranger, not knowing any one in the Colony, and he was charged by the captain with murder. He supported a widowed mother. Prisoner did not ask for sympathy on his own account but for his mother.

Fis Honor, after going through the evidence, ad<tressed the jury to the following effectit was just possible that to put - man on to the “gallows” might be, under certain circumstances, quite usual on board ship, but if it be resorted to, like mastheadmg a midshipman, under such circumstances of wind and weather as to render it dan serous, the officer who inflicts that punishment must take the consequences. If for instance, the pvidepce bad been that from his dangerous position the man i piled overboard it would be sufficient to justify the jury in coming to the conclusion that the*falling overboard was oonneoted with the rolling of the ship and the man’s being projeoted over board from that dangerous position, thus establishing a sufficient connexion between the sending of a man into that position and his death as tfi make the person accused guilty of manslaughter. Undoubtedly beating a man was’an unlawful act. There was no justification whatever for beating any seaman or sailortm board a ship, though no doubt officers sometimes did beat seamen for giving them what was called “ cheek. ” It had been said that the man Qreen gave *** cheek u occasionally Ifcbeating be resorted to the person who inflicts the beating must take the consequents. For instance, a man in beating another on the ifhoulderg mi*ht by an awkward or mpdirectel blow strike him on the temple and kill him without having an»inteution to commit murder, 'though in one sense accidental, the act could not be considered accidental in the sense of being perfectly excusable, but as it flowed from ah unlawful act a jury would be justified in flatting the prisoner guilty of manslaughter. So in this case it was for the jury to consider these beatings. If they should come to the conclusion that there was no intention to carry the punishment to the extent of producing death, and, therefore supposing they were disposed to negative altogether the charge of murder, yet if they should be. of opinion that the infliction of those beatings was the driving of this man -overboard, or caused him to lose his footing or his hold and so to fall overboard, from that circumstance it would justify them in coming to the conclusion that there was a necessary connection between the beatings and the fall, and be competent for them to find the prisoner guilty of manslaughter. The case turned upon the evidence of the lad Sharp, confirmed in some degree by the evidence of the man at the wheel—white. If they believed the evidence of Sharp, it could leave no doubt in their minds that Green, just before he went overboard, was being beaten— and pretty severely beaten - with an instrument that, used in the strong hand of a man would inflict such pain as might possibly cause the man to fall—to go overboard. The sum ai d substance of it amounted to this If the jury were satisfied with the evidence of Sharp, that Dodd was beating Green contmuously for some minutes, ordering him upon % *5 gallows and when he fell ordering him up again, ajid endeavoring to enforce bis orders by beating the man with a be-laying-pm - if they thought that was' the cause of h;a tumbling overboard, then, .. °®l>“ they poasaibly might be of opinion that it was never in Dodd’s mind or his in* tentionto drive the man overboard, yet if ®“ e y thought the two things—the beating and the falling overboard—were connected, it would be competent for them to find the prisoner guilty of manslaughter. Of course, if upon the whole testimony there remained any reasonable doubt, it was their duty to give the prisoner the benefit of that doubt. The jury, after an hour’s retirement, found the prisoner guilty of “ manslaughter,"

Tho prisoner was removed!, and his Honor appointed Monday to'hear Mr Stout state the intends to raise on the prisoner’s behalf before the Court of Appeal, In-the course of the argument, his Honor stated in his opinion there was only ono substantial point, and that was whether the Court had jurisdiction ; and Mr Stout replied that that was the main point he intended to urge.