CHARGE DISMISSED

Hokitika Guardian, 26 May 1931, Page 6

CHARGE DISMISSED

THREATEN! NG LETTER. CASH/. At the Magistrate’s Court 'Greymouth yesterday, before Mr tf. Alel(lrutu, S.M. Sarah Pierson, a married woman, and a resident of Kumara, was charged that at Greymouth on May 4th, she did cause an anonymous letter to he sent to George Clark, Chief Postmaster at Greymouth, threatening to burn down the Post Office at Kumara unless one Dan Pooling was removed therefrom. The anonymous note read: “The next big blaze may be the P.O. unless Dooling is removed.” Air j. Murdoch represented accused.

Accused appeared on remand from the previous week, when the evidence of only one witness, George eClark, formerly Chief Postmaster at Greymouth, was heard. Accused had then pleaded not guilty. Detective Sergeant T. 15. Holmes conducted the prosecution. After a long hearing the Magistrate reviewed the evidence at length. Ho said that the charge was based on the letter which read: “Tlie next big blaze may he the Post Office, unless Dooling is removed.- Kumara, May 3.” The accused was charged with threatening to burn a building down. Assuming that it was actually written by the accused, the question was whether in its construction it, came within the definition of the crime with which the accused was charged. AVas. it a threat to burn down the Post Office ? If it was not a threat, it did not tome within the Crimes Act. If it was a threat, it did come within the charge. It had been suggested that the accused lived six or seven bundled yards away from the Post. Office and that she had intended to go along some quiet night and burn the building down. That was IT the threat was in earnest. The question lie Had to consider was: Mould a. jury hold that accused would go along and burn the Post Office down? He did not think a jury would come to tnat conclusion. A mere suggestion by tiie letter that somebody else might burn the building down v*n not a threat by accused that she was going to burn it down. To charge hei with the crime there must be something done to show that she had in tent to commit a crime. A jury would not say she would burn tile Post Office down by reading into the contents of the letter. A jury would ask: Had it been proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, accused wrote the letter? She denied writing the letter. There was also the sworn testimony of accused's husband accounting for her movements. There was also evidence that the letter box in which the letter wn s found was a considerable distance away—over half a mile. For the prosecution. evidence was given of a similarity in the writing of the, letters produced, hut no expert in h uidwnting had been called to give evidence, and, even if expert evidence had been called, it would have still been possible to call evidence of other experts in handwriting to conflict with that evidence. “Uiol( : ng on it from a second point of view, therefore, am I to think there is any possibility of a jury convicting?” said His AYorship. “I think not. and therefore thin* r waste of time sending it up to a jury. The case is dismissed.