CAFFREY’S TRIAL
GUILTY OF M ANSLAUGHTER.
RECOMMENDATION TO MERCY
(By Telegraph—Press Association)
AUCKLAND, November 6. The Caffrey murder trial was continued to-day. Giving evidence for the' defence in the charge of murder, Mrs Caffrey, wife of the accused, said Caffrey and Byrne went out o'f Caffrey’s home .about (J. 40 p.m. She identified the blood-stained dajrk trousers and brown ,boots (produced) as having belonged to Byrne. She denied having seen in her ,house the sheath knife (produced). Byrne changed his shirt, and next day .she found the brown boots in the washhouse.
“Byrne brought a 'knife to the house, .and it- was as sharp as a razor,” said witness. “I used it for cutting bread, but it was missing at the time of the tragedy.” Witness saw Byrne later, .and reference was made to the arrest. Byrne said: “I kept my mouth shut, and if George had done the same, he ■would not be where lie is to-day.”
William John Lynch, Timber Worker, gave evidence that, on the evening of August 2, Byrne was wearing ,a blue overcoat and blue pants. Witness was quite positive about that. He had remarked to his sister: “'Byrne ,was looking flash to-night. He had a blue overcoat and blue pants on.” Mr Dickson, for the defence, said that the evidence* about the knife was .most unsatisfactory. Was it to be .believed that six trained detectives ■could have failed to find it in a small (poorly-furnished room ? It was very .doubtful if the knife had been tl&re ,at all. Byrne did not get the name ,df a “wild Irishman” for nothing. ,1 f Caffrey owned both the pairs c. 1 ' hoots exhibited, could it be supposed that he wore the two pairs of boots .and got them both blood-stained that .evening? If the Crown came along and said now, for the first time, that Caffrey aided and abetted in the commission of a crime, then the Crown threw over its whole case. The Crown was now in effect, putting Byrne in the box alongside Caffrey, and saving: “ Byrne, you did the crime; and Cafi'rcy, you aided and abetted him! ” That meant that Caffrey did not actually commit the murder, and the whole Crown case collapsed like a. pack of cards.
.Ur Meredith, Crown Prosecutor, paid: “One thing clear is that the unfortunate man, Leavy, was foully done to death by a stab in the groin. Cl' that point there can be no doubt. The point for the jury to consider is whether Caffrey was responsible for
.that death or not.” Mr Meredith invited the jury to consider whether there was any other than Caffrey at the door when the stabbing took place. If it concluded that Caffrey was alone, then it was perfectly clear that the direct cause of Leavy’s death was .stabbing by Caffrey.. Mr Justice Smith summed up tonight. He said that a householder ■named Leavy was stabbed to death while preventing an intruder from entering bis premises. That was the essence of the case. It had not been .shown that either accused or Byrne, who had been brought into the case, had any enmity against Leavy. He did not know whether it was just to Heavy to say that he belonged to the “underworld.” There was no evidence on that point. At any rate, he was a householder. If the jury concluded that Caffrey was alone at the door of the house, it would have little difficulty in concluding that there had Jieen an unlawful killing. If Byrne .was also there, the Crown still submitted that Caffrey did the stabbing. Even if two persons were there, it was for the jury to say whether Caffrey did the stabbing or not. A second phase of the case, which had been developed by the defence, was that the stabbing had been done by Byrne. To establish the accused in this case, the jury must come to the conclusion that there was some common purpose between Caffrey and Byrne to assist each other in entering the premises by violence, at any cost. The crime of murder might he reduced to manslaughter if the jury considered that the accused received such provocation as to cause a. reasonable man to use a deadly weapon in ■self-defence. The case was fairly barren of evidence to show Leavy gave provocation. When a lethal weapon was used, the provocation must be very great. The jury retired at 8.30. LATER. After a retirement of a little longer than two hours, the jury returned a verdict of “ guilty of manslaughter, with a strong recommendation to mercy, because the jury believed that the full guilt was not Caffrey’s.” Sentence will be pronounced on Friday morning.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19291107.2.16
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Hokitika Guardian, 7 November 1929, Page 3
Word count
Tapeke kupu
782CAFFREY’S TRIAL Hokitika Guardian, 7 November 1929, Page 3
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
The Greymouth Evening Star Co Ltd is the copyright owner for the Hokitika Guardian. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of the Greymouth Evening Star Co Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.