SUPREME COURT, HOKITIKA.

Kumara Times, Issue 2354, 14 March 1884, Page 2

SUPREME COURT, HOKITIKA.

—* CRIMINAL JURISDICTION. Thursday, March 13. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.] MURDER. The trial of John Douohue for the murder of James Gifford at Maori Creek on the 5 th January, was continued and concluded today. The evidence most important of the remaining witnesses examined was that of Constable Nash, Sergeant O'Grady, and Dr. Hector. As the evidence of the two first-named differs not materially from that given by them at the Magisterial inquiry at Greymoutb in January last, and published by us on the 17th of that month, it is unnecessary to reprint it now, and we conclude our extracts of evidence by publishing that of Dr. Hector, which will doubtless be looked for as the most important. That and what follows is taken from the West Coast Times of to-day : James Hector, sworn, said—l am an analyistj I know Sergeant O'Grady; he was in Wellington on the 11th February; he handed me a carpet bag. (Witness here described the contents of the bag.) I examined the hair of the I prisoner; I found a soft dark brown hair with a few grey hairs; I examined the beard of the accused ; I found they were dark brown hairs a little grey; I examined the hair from the fore-finger of the left hand of the deceased, it was a slender, dark hair, and very similar to the hair of the prisoner ; the hair taken from between the fore-finger and thumb of the deceased, I found a dark, wiry hair, and similar to that of the beard of the prisoner. I examined the dirt from the nails of the accused, and found some sand and blood, and two or three small dark hairs; they were very small. The hair taken from the waistcoast of the prisoner was of a black colour, five inches in length ; it had been torn out from the roots ; it seemed different from any of the foregoing, but I afterwards found it to be similar to the hair of the deceased's beard ; the hair found in left hand of the deceased, resembled the hair of the prisoner's beard; the hair from the head of the deceased was a slender hair of a dull chestnut hue, soiled with clotted blood ; the hair on the accused's beard does not correspond with the hair of the deceased's beard ; the coat I examined carefully; it is stained a little hut the stains do not prove to be blood : 1 examined the shirt, but only found one stain of blood with a hair hanging to it: the spot is about one one-sixteenth of an inch in diameter; in the clot of blood were attached two hairs which I could not identify with any others; the braces and two hankerchiefs showed no blood stains; the waistcoat had a stain, but I could not identify it with blood ; on the left leg of the trousers I found two spots, but I could not identify them to be blood ; the boots were so mouldy that I could not get any reliable information ; there was a small parcel handed to me last evening containing some piant and two hats; I found the stain on one hat to be dried paint, and quite removable ; I compared the paint taken from the roof of the coach and the paint on the hat and found them to be similar; I was asked to look at a blanket this morning; the constable called my attention to some stains ; they appear to be clotted blood ; one of the stains has gone through the blanket; I agree with Dr. Morice's evidence. Cross-examined : I examined everything myself; it is impossible for me to swear that the hairs produced are the same as the accused's ; I examined particularly the coat, but could find no stains of blood ; the trousers looked as if they bad been wetted. To the foreman: Blood can be sponged out with cold water. Cross-examination continued; The stains on the trousers do not go right through. I can form no opinion how the stains on the trousers were caused. This concluded the case for the Crown. Mr Purkiss addressed the jury for the Crown. He pointed out that accused and deceased left Dunganville within five or ten minutes of each other, and that, the scene of the murder was a spot about a thousand yards from Barnhill's store. The two men could not well have been much further at the time—-half-past eleven at night—when the murder was supposed to have been committed. Some men living beside the track swore that they heard someone passing at quick pace, and even one of the witnesses went so far as to say that he heard someone running past his hut in an exhausted manner. All these footsteps were heard going in the direction of accused's hut. It had beeD proved that the accused was heard to come homo batween eleven and one o'clock in the morning. It was quite

clear that the murder had been committed by a sheath knife; the knife had been found a few feet from the body; accused had a sheath knife; where had it gone ? There could be n« possible doubt that the prisoner dropped the knife when he was running away The murderer had left bis hat there and also his umbrella; the umbrella which was found beside the body had been proved sufficiently to belong to the accused. If the jury could say that the accused was the owner of these articles, they would be forced to bring in the prisoner a guilty man. There was no doubt that the accused had bought the umbrella at Kutnara. Mr Todd swore it was like the umbrella that he had sold to the accused. It . had been proved that the accused asked M'Fee to bring an umbrella from a hotel at Greymouth. Therefore M'Fee was able to have a good look at it. M'Fee, in his evidence, said that was the accused's umbrella ; and that there was not another like it in the district. It had been proved that the accused had an umbrella when he left Dunganville on the sth January last, and when Constable Nash asked him if it was his umbrella, he said it was his; and shortly afterwards said, "I don't think my umbrella had so many notches in the handle." It had been proved that the accused had two hats; and that the hat he had on when arrested was not the hat he wore when last seen at Dunganville. Prisoner had only accounted for one hat, and the Crown had given sufficient proof that the hat found beside the body of the unfortunate man was the property of the prisoner at the bar. When the prisoner was told that there had been a murder committed, he did not seem to put himself about, and contented himself with saying, " Who is it ? man, woman, or child 1" He did not ask who it was that was suspected, nor inquire for particulars about the murder. The jury would have to consider—First, Was the prisoner guilty of the crime of murder 1 or was he innocent] and were the articles found accused's property? Mr Purkiss concluded a powerful address, lasting close on two hours, by saying he would leave the case to the jury, who could have no doubt that the prisoner murdered James Gifford on the night of the sth January. MrGuinnessaddressedthejuryfor the defence. He said he wished them to pay strict attention to his remarks in this serious matter. He hoped they would not pay any attention to what they had heard outside, but approach the evidence without fear, and if they did that he felt sure they would bring in a true verdict. Circumstantial evidence meant that there was no sure evidence to show that the accused committed the deed. He read authorities warning juries against bringing in prisoners guilty on slight circumstantial evidence. It was not likely that the prisoner murdered Gifford to obtain the money which the deceased had in his possession. Deceased had a bank deposit. What good was the deposit to the prisoner ? There was no evidence to show that the prisoner had any illwill against the deceased, but on the contrary, there was evidence to prove that the prisoner borrowed a compass from deceased, and the prisoner said how kind it was of the deceased to lend it to him, and then show him the way to use it. It was a matter of impossibility for anyone to swear that he knew an umbrella from any similar one, without some particular mark. There was no witness except M'Fee, who would swear to it. With regard to the hat, he would ask the jury to remember J that a witness said the accused pulled the tassels off his hat while he was in the coach going to Kumara, and he would remind them that the hat the accused was arrested in had the tassels off. There was not the slightest evidence to show that the knife belonged to the accused. The evidence of Dr. Hector was the evidence of an expert, and it was for the jury to say if they would believe that evidence. It only proved that some of the hairs found in the unfortunate man's hand were something similar to the hairs of the accused. The doctor did not say the hairs found in the hands of the deceased were the same, therefore they would have to consider that point well. With regard to the prisoner's face having some marks on it, was it not quite possible that the prisoner did fall over a pungy or some wood, and in falling in the neiphborhood of the place, scratched his face 1 ? How could the prisoner say the exact place he. fell 1 ? it was a dark ni<*ht. There was no evidence to show that the prisoner went home along the track on which the body of the deceased was found. There was strong evidence that the accused was in a billiard-room when the deceased went homo. B a-nhil snid he left the accused in his hiiiiaid room when ho wt>nt t< i'u' fiout door \j£ his store to '•.. j :»« saw GiffwrU

passing, and watched bim till he was out of sight on his way home. It ■would be remembered that the prisoner asked two men to accompany hirn home; and if he contemplated this crime he would not have asked anyone to go home with him. Would it be possible for the jury to say that a man stabbed in twenty-two places would not bleed a good deal? Would not the man that committed the murder be covered in blood. The prisoner was never asked to say what was the causa of the stain on his trousers; he could not give an explanation now, but if he were allowed to, he could gire an explanation. Was it not possible that the prisoner's nose was bleeding, and that a drop fell on his shirt. The jury would have to be satisfied that the prisoner did commit the deed. If there was a doubt, the prisoner would have to get the benefit of it. His Honor addressed the jury, and said that the deceased was murdered and it was for the jury to say if the prisoner was guilty of the crime ; they would have to say if the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict him, and if it was, they would have to do it. If there was a doubt, they would have to give the prisoner the benefit of it, and acquit him. No unfriendly relations had been shown to exist between the accused and the deceased; with regard to the prisoner being on the spot about the time, they had the evidence of several witnesses. From M'Kecbnie's to the place where the murder was committed was under three-quarters of a mile. Morton said he heard screeches between eleven and half-past. Taking all the evidence together there was no doubt that Gifford came straight on his way to Dunganville, Footsteps were heard passing from the direction of the scene of the murder, but they ■were heard at no other houses beyond prisoner's. It did not appear, however, that inquiries had been made on the other side of the river. The evidence ■was that the deceased and the prisoner left Dunganville within a short time of each other. The murder must have been committed a short time alter. Prisoner was in the neighborhood, and the murderer ran in the direction in which the prisoner would go if he were the murderer. With reference to the fact of the prisoner lighting a fire in the middle of the night, that might be considered an odd thing to do. It was probable the murderer was alarmed by footsteps approaching from Williams', because a hat, knife, and umbrella were found, which there was a strong probability belonged to the murderer. If the jury were satisfied that either of these articles belonged to the prisoner, that would raise an emormous presumption against him. His Honor then reviewed the evidence in connection with the umbrella, and said it was clear that the prisoner had an umbrella resembling that found under the deceased. It was for the jury to say whether they believed prisoner's account of the manner in which he lost it, and it was for them to say whether the umbrella produced was the prisoner's. His Honor then referred to the hats found near the deceased's body. One was proved to belong to the deceased. The question was, if the other hat was one ■which had been worn by the prisoner. On Boxing Day several witnesses spoke of prisoner getting paint on his hat, from the roof of M'Fee's coach as he was going in that vehicle to Greymouth. There was no doubt that there were stains of paint on the hat near the body. That alone did not prove the hat to be prisoner's. The hat was, however, proved to be of the size and appearance of that ■worn by the prisoner. There were a number of witnesses who saw accused in Dunganville on the sth January. Prisoner wore a much older hat when he was arrested than he wore at Dunganville. With regard to the knife foand, that evidently belonged to the murderer. His Honor then read and commented on the evidence concerning the knife and match-box, and cigars; all that could be said about them was that similar articles had been seen in prisoner's possession. His Honor then reviewed the evidence touching the scratches on prisoner's face and the hairs referred to in Dr. Hector's testimony. The jury, it was possible, might be able to say how prisoner got his injuries by the witnesses' description of them. If the jury held that any of the articles found near the body of the deceased belonged to prisoner, the evidence respecting the hairs would strengthen the case against him. The evidence regarding blood stains was weak, but prisoner may have washed them off if there were any, from his boots and trousers. He had at all events plenty of time to do so. Then it was possible, as Dr. Morico said, that as no arteries were severed, the bleeding was not heavy, and all the cuts were through deceased's clothes. His Honor concluded an exhaustive summing up

by stating that a case such as that they ! were considering offered two opposite dangers. One was the tendency, when a serious crime was committed, towards a strong feeling against the supposed perpetrator. No doubt that tendency was natural, for people did not like to let crime go unavenged. On the other hand there was a danger that the jury might, through insufficient application of ther minds, be unwilling to convict unless direct evidence of the deed were brought before them. They had to avoid these extremes. He had put the evidence before them as fairly as he could. They had to decide whether, beyond all reasonable doubt, the prisoner had committed the crime, whether as reasonable men they had no doubt he was the criminal. Strong, vigorous common sense was necessary. They should not on the one hand be carried away by mere suspicions, nor \ on the other hand give false weight to circumstances or indulge in fantastic theories. The jury retired at 5.20 p.m., and returned to Court at 6.30 p.m., with a verdict of " Guilty." The Eegistrar asked the prisoner if he had anything to say why the sentence of the Court should not be passed upon him. The prisoner replied as follows : " My Lord, I will just say a few words. First of all, I will say I am innocent of the crime of which I have been found guilty. Oh, God ! witness this murder which is about to take place, for I know lamto be sentenced to death ! I shall meet all the jurymen who have fonnd me guilty above, and then they will be able to tell if I was guilty of the murder of James Gifford. I have only a few more words to say. I will say I am a Roman Catholic, and all the priests and bishops may come to console me, but I will tell them that I am innocent, and that J am going to meet my God, and that I am not afraid to do so. The evidence that I have been found guilty on is mere circumstantial evidence, trumped up by the officials. I will say in justice to a certain witness, (prisoner here turned to Constable Nassh who was standing beside the prisoner's box and pointed to him), this gentleman standing here, I mean Constable Nash, went into the witness box and told the truth ; he did justice to me; and he also did justice to his country, but as for the other witnesses Ido not care. I shall go to my God, who alone knows I did not commit the murder. I have been fifteen or sixteen years in New Zealand, and I defy any man to come and say I served him a dirty trick. If ever I had any words with another man, I always stripped off and had it out, and generally got a thrashing. I will again say I am innocent : I suppose I have only a short time to live. I would not commit the crime, nor yet would I stand by and see another man commit such a deed. I will say that the jury who have found me guilty, and the officials who have helped them will not be long after me. i I have uo more to say with the exception to ask that what I have said will be remembered when I am lying rotten in my grave. lam innocent of the crime. _ Now, my lord, you may proceed with your sentence." His Honour then said :—" John j Donohue ! You have been found guilty of the murder of James Gifford, at Maori Creek, on the night of January 5, by a jury of your own countrymen. I have nothing to say but to pass the sentence which the law compels me to pass." The Judge here put on the black cap, and sentenced the prisoner in the usual form to be hanged in the gaol, Hokitika. The prisoner was then removed in the custody of the gaoler. His Honour then thanked the jury for their attention during the case, and said, owing to the long time they had ' devoted to it, he would not ask them to attend the Court further. He therefore discharged them, but the other jurora would have to be present next day. The Court then adjourned till ten o clock this morninw. CORRESPONDENCE. The Editor does not, necessarily, adopt the opinions expressed by correspondents. LITERATURE FOR THE SICK. [to the editor.] Siu—l wish to gratefully acknowledge the regular and liberal gifts of illustrated papers to my patients in the Hospital by the Rev. Mr Holland; and beg to invite any, who have the power, to help in the same way, as pictorial p;.'ri-..licals -:ontribute to cheerfulness, and checrfdness to recovery.---I am' &c, | F. A. Mo'ckton, I . Surgeon-Superintendent,