DEATH SENTENCE

Hokitika Guardian, 30 November 1932, Page 2

DEATH SENTENCE

TARRANT CONVICTED OF MURDER THE JUDGE’S SUMMING UP. (Per Press Association Copyright.) BLENHEIM, November 29. The Picton murder trial came to a dramatic conclusion to-day. When the Court opened this morning, His Honour Judge Blaii*, summed up. The jury retired at 11.30 a'.in. On returning to the Court room, the Foreman announced that the jury returned a verdict of guilty. ...... The prisoner, . Edward was then sentenced to death. 1 'yi'&s When the verdict was read pto the prisoner, he said: “I nevercjjiigit.”' The Judge addressing the jury^-said: "No one one has a greater appreciation than I of your labours. It will be a satisfaction, perhaps, to know that I fully concur in the verdict you have returned. Each and every one of you will be exempt from further jury service for a period of seven years. Summing up when the Court resumed this morning, His Honour said that it was just 66 years since there was a capital case in the history of the court in Blenheim, the last murder trial being in 1876. The Crown, in this case, he said, had (two things to prove. The first was that James Flood was murdered, and the second was that accused was the murderer, Both of those allegations depended upon what was known as circumstantial evidence, as no one witnessed the murder. He was referring to this aspect, because one frequently heard it stated that circumstantial evidence was not as satisfactory as direct evidence. There were cases where

direct evidence ivas better than circumstantial, but there were cases where circumstantial evidence was better than direct evidence.

Taking the first matter, as to whether James Flood was murdered, His Honour said that the circumstantial evidence that he was murdered was overwhelming. The only important matter in this connection was the question as to the time at which the crime was committed, and it plight have an important bearing on other features of the case., The Crown he took it, concluded that Flood was murdered round about 9 o’clock on November 3, their reasoning being that, as the body was found fully dressed and the bed had not been slept in, death had occurred between the hour of 7.4 Q p.m., when Flood was last seen alive, and his usual bedtime, which might be taken as being about 10.30 p.m. That was something to go on, though the defence had suggested that the old man might have fallen asleep in his chair, and that, therefore, there was nothing to justify the belief that death had occurred early at night, as the crime might have been committed at any hour of the night. It might be inferred, though there was no direct evidence, that on that very night the deooasod had the wallet in his possession. This inference was reasonable, because there was evidence that the old man carried fihe wallet, and when the body was found, the pocket which had held it was open, and the wallet gone. This established the question of a motive for the crime, and it was not disputed by the defence.

Proceeding, His Honour reviewed the evidence at some length. He repeated that there was no direct evidence. The Crown's case, he said, depended upon the collection of a number of facts or circumstances, and the Crown, in effect, said: “We produce to you a number of strands of trhth. Some may be stronger than others. Some may have little strength. But we weave them into a cord, and that cord is sufficiently strong to support our case/’ Another way to put it was to compare the Crown’s case with the building of a faggot—some weak sticks and some strong ones—but the whole, when bound together, ( being sufficiently strong to support the contention that the accused was guilty. There were, he thought, eight or nine pieces of evidence which tthe Crown relied upon, and he would refer to them briefly. The first portion of the Crown’s case depended on what opportunity the accused had to commit the crime. The Crown suggested that he had such an opportunity, and, while on this topic, the Ciown also said that when the accused was questioned about this opportunity, he made an incorrect statement. The accused was asked what he was doing about the time of the murder ; and, shortly put, the Crown’s case, on the evidence of Parslow and Hebley, and of some boys at the time of the Sunday School, was that the accused was about one hour out in his story of his movements; and it was put by the Crown that, during that hour, there was the opportunity which could have been availed of. The Crown suggested, of course, that the accused had purposely mis-stated the position. That was part of the Ciown case. The Crown, of course, did not say that that was the strongest stick in the faggot of proof, and it would be found that some sticks in the faggot were extreme-

, ly weak. The next strand in the Crown’s case, he proceeded, was a. suggestion that the accused suddenly became possessed of money. He had none on the 2nd of November, but on the 4th he had quite a lot. Details in connection with that money had been given, and there was no dispute as to that. Payments totalled £46, and the accused’s explanation was that he, got £l9 19s 3d from a firm in Blenheim, and had burrowed £3O from the deceased. This made a total of £SO. The Crown said that the accused became flush of funds shortly after the murder. The accused

had volunteered to the, police on November Bth the information that he had borrowed £3O. The Crown suggested that he. did this for the purpose of getting over a difficulty jin which he might find himself through the sudden acquisition of funds. Ho gave as his reason for advancing the information that he was a Catholic and that he could not rest knowing that he had borrowed £3O from a dead man, and bad told no one about it. His Honour contrasted this attitude | with the accused’s attitude when, acj cording to his own story, he found the wallet and used the money. Apparent- • ly, he remarked, his religious scruples did not go so far as to preserve him from,/laying hands on this large sum Jof money. The Crown also pointed out ■! that. the accused was in serious finan-cial-difficulties, and that it must have beenvwell known in Picton, so (that

Flood was not likely to lend him money. But the defence pointed tthe fact that the accused had not been sued in the courts for about two years before the murder. Another factor i 1 regard to the accused’s story that he borrowed £3O from the deceased was the evidence of one of the deceased’s nephews that, on the very time the accusd said that he borrowed the money, he was with the deceased, as against that, of course, the defence claimed that either the nephew or accused was mistaken as to the time. Coming to a third “strand” in the evidence, His Honou r referred to the evidence that on the day after the murder thero was a fire producing offensive smoke in accused’s washhouse, though it was not. washing day. That might he a weak Btrand, but it waa added by the Crown to th© faggot of evidence it had built up, The fourth set of circumstances dealt with the mature of the injuries 1 re-

ceived by the deceased. He had been dealt a blow on the head, and •had then been virtually beheaded twice, the

blows being delivered by an expert with an axe. The Crown also suggested that the accused was an expert with an axe, and showed that he demon-

strated his skill to a police officer. On the accused’s side, jt was claimed that Tarrant was not likely to give such a demonstration if he had a guilty conscience, hut the police officers gave evidence that the demonstration was lan uncousicou3 one.

Coming to the fifth "strand.” His Honour referred to the accused’s inquiries in regard to the purchase of a motor truck, which required a deposit of £lO2. The Crown considered that this showed the accused had money at that date, before Christmas. On the othe r hand, Mr parry,- quite fairly, had pointed out that lots .of people pricedthings, though they had no prosp e ot of purchasing them. This evidence didn’t seem to carry the case far, hut it was for the jury to attach to the incident such value a s they thought it worth.

The cashing by the accused of eleven , £lO notes, amj,, five £2O •.notes was next touched 1 on by, His Honour, who pointed out that the Grown showed that the notes were cashed in Blenheim, and not in Pioton, though there was a bank in Picton at which they could Aave been cashed. The Crown also pointed out that thege notes were cashed after the detective s had left Picton in February, or .after the hu« and cry had died down. .It was suggested that the accused then thought the coast' was clear. Of course, the Crown put. a most sinister construction upon it. .It was for the, jury to draw its own inferences from the. evidence. The eighth branch of the Crown's case, His Honour said, was that, when he was showed the feebleness of the explanation that he had saved the money, he mad e a further statement—wjhich he still .adhered to—that .he found the money. The Crown asked the jury to reject that statement, and, in addition, offered evidence that prior to the alleged finding of the wallet, detectives had made an intensive search of every branch and twig, every blade of grass, and every fallen leaf, and they said that, if ther© had been a wallet there, they would have got it. The defence, of course, suggested, in •reply to this, that the murderer might have placed the wallet under the hedge later—perhaps when he learned that the accused's house had been searched, and he feared that /his own might be. Should the jury consider the story of finding the wallet unacceptable, there I was a significance which was to b© attached t 0 the fact that the accused was in possession of money which might be inferred to be Flood’s money,and the proceeds of a murderous robbery.

Th-se, His Honour ‘said, were the eight sticks in the Crown’s faggot. Some were weak, gome were -strong, and some might occur to the jury as “being capable of more than one inference. If the thing were capable of two inferences the accused was entitled to have that one adopted which made far innocence. His Honour said that the defence was not an affirmative one, but relied upon the alleged weakness- of the Crown case, as, of course, it was entitled to do. “If you come to the conclusion that there is a reasonable doubt—if you feel in your hearts that the Crown case has not affirmatively established the accused’s guilt,” he concluded, “it is your duty to your country and to the accused to bring in a verdict of not guilty ; but if, Jafter due consideration, you come to the conclusion that, viewed as the whole, the Crown has built up such a case as establishes to your satisfaction that the accused ig guilty, it is equally your duty to your country and yourselves to bring in a- verdict of guilty." His Honour concluded his address at ■11.30 a.m., land one or two points of fact were discussed between Hi« Honour and counsel. The jury retired 11.35 a.m.

| An expectant hush ran round the ! room at 3.10 p.m., when the news was gathered that the jury was / ready. Counsel began to take their seats at the tables, and the jury v r ere mfarched in, while, £i few seconds later, the prisoner, rather paile, but still preserving the imperturbability that has sustained him throughout his ordeal, wa s Jed into the dock. r ' “Gentlemen of the jury,” inquired the Registrar, ‘‘have you agreed upon your verdict?” “Do you find the prisoner guilty or not guilty?” There was a pregnant pause while th© foreman, after clearing his throat, ] nervously replied: "Our verdict is qne of guilty.” ..•Turning to the prisoner, the Registrar addressed him : "Edward, ,Tarrant, prisoner, atfi the, bar, you have beer, foyqd guijty iofi wilful murder:! Have you,[ .anything- to i ~say why sentence of death should,,not be passed on you ?'■ The prisoner stared blankly ahead oi him, and made no response. “H© has not heard,” said His Honour. “Read to him again.” Amid a painful silence, the Registrar 1 walked right up to the dock, and repeated the admonition in a clear voice. The prisoner murmured; “I never did it.”

His Honour then donned the black cap, and pronounced the sentence oi death. When the prisoner had been escorted from the dock, the Judge thanked the jury, and exempted them from further jury service for seven yeiars,