CAFFREY MURDER TRIAL.

Manawatu Herald, Volume L, Issue 40020, 7 November 1929, Page 3

CAFFREY MURDER TRIAL.

Auckland, November 6,

Further evidence was heard to dav in the Gaffney murder trial.

MJrs. Margaret Langton described the visit paid to her house by Caft'rey on the night of the murder. Accused said he wanted to see Cole, adding that- he “Would kill the to-night.” She informed him Cole was not then living at the house but Iliad moved to 119 Nelson Street.

James Langton gave corroborative evidence.

Delia Mary Connor, sister-in-law of 'Caffrey, said she visited his house in Wellington Street on the night of the murder and found accused there with two other men, O’Bullon and Bryne. Oaffrey had a mark under one eye, which lie stated was given to him hy the “wild Irishman,” meaning Bryne. Detectives came to the house shortly afterward and took Caffrey and his wife to the police station. Bryne said: “They will come back for me. lam in this.”

An .inspection of the scene of the tragedy was made hy the jury and on the resumption of the proceedings Frederick William Arinilage, bacteriologist at Auckland hospital testified to finding marks of human blood on a pair of black boots, a pair of grey socks and a sheath knife.

Tn replying to Mr. Dickson, witness said llie also examined a pair of tan boots and blue serge trousers submitted to him by counsel. On being asked whether blood could have been sprayed on the articles artificially, witness said this would he practically impossible in l he case of the trousers.

“I propose to show that the trousers and tan hoots belong to Bryne,” said Mir. Dickson. “We admit the blaclk boots arc the property of Caffrey.”

After Do tee live Kniglit had gi veil evidence, the hearing was ad

journed

Auckland, Last Night

The trial was continued to-day. Patrick Bryne stated in evidence that he was in (Caffery’s house on the night of the murder and never went out after <6 o’clock. He did not know Leavy was murdered until the police came for him. He denied that a. pair of bloodstained boots and trousers similarly marked belonged to him.

At Mr. Meredith's request, Byrne tried on the hoots and trousers and the trousers would not button round his waist. Byrne said the boots were a mile too big. On being cross-examined, witness admitted he had been drinking heavily but denied that at about 6.30 p.m. he and Caffery left the latter’s house to go in search of Cole at 119 Nelson Street. He persisted in saying that lie and Caffery came home together that evening, lie denied that lie carried a knife and he had no knives at Caffcry’s that night." He denied he wore dark trousers on the day of the murder and that lie changed his shirt that evening. He persisted in denying lie was outside Caffery’s house on tlio night of the murder till counsel remarked: “I suppose you deny all knowledge of I he affair?” “Absolutely,” said witness. This closed the case for the Crown.

In giving evidence fqr the defence, Mrs. Caffery, wife of accused, said accused and Byrne went out of the house at about 6.40 p.m. She identified the bloodstained dark trousers and brown boots, produced, as having belonged to Byrne. She denied having seen in her house the sheath knife. Byrne changed his shirt and next day she found the brown boots in the washhouse and she took them to the detective off(cc. Later, she found the stained trousers. “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 accused’s arrest. Byrne said: “I kept my mouth shut and if George had done the same, lie would not he 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.

Mr. Diclkson, for the defence, said the evidence about the knife was most unsatisfactory. Was it believable that six trained detectives could have failed to find it in a small, poorly furnished room? It was vary doubtful if the knife had been there at all. Byrne did not get the name of “wild Irishman” for nothing. If Gallery owned both pail’s of booty exhibited, could it be supposed that he wore two pairs of boots and got them both bloods stained that evening? Mr. Justice Smith in summing up said a householder named Leavy was stabbed to death while preventing - an intruder from entering his 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 heavy. He did not know whether it was just to Leavy to say he to the underworld. There was no evidence on that point. At any rate, he was a householder. If the jury concluded that Caft’ery was alone at the door of the house, it would have little diflieulty in concluding there had been unlawful killing. If Byrne was also there, the Crown still submitted Gallery did. the stabbing. Even if two persons were there, it was for the jury to say whether Gallery did the stabbing or not. The second phase of the case which had been developed by the defence was that the . stabbing had been done by Byrne. To establish

the guilt of accused in that case; the .jury must come to the oonclu- . siou that there was some common purpose between Caffery and Byrne to assist each other in entering the premises by violence at any cost. The crime of murder might be reidueed to manslaughter if the jury considered that accused had received such provocation a® to cause a reasonable man to use a deadly weapon in self-defence. The ease was fairly barren of evidence, however, to show that Leavy gave provocation when tilie lethal weapon was used. The provocation must be very great.

( The jury retired at 8.30 p.m. and after a retirement of a little longer than two hours,, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of manslaughter, with a strong recommendation to tmercy, because tho jury 'believed that the full guilt was not Caffery’s. Sentence will be pronounced tomorrow.