THREAT TO KILL

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10287, 23 May 1919, Page 3

THREAT TO KILL

MYSTERIOUS AFFAIR

WELL-KNOWN TRADESMAN CHARGED.

UNEXPECTED ENDING TO PROCEEDINGS.

One of the most extraordinary cases to come before a judge and jury for a considerable time occupied the attention of the Supreme Court yesterday. Richard \yilliam! Martin, who is well known jn trades circles, was charged that on February sth, 1919, he sent a letter through the post threatening to kill Collins, a storeman employed with accused by Robert Martin, Ltd., oil and colour merchants. There was also another charge of sending a letter through the post .on October 13th, 1918, threatening to kill Collins. Tho bench was occupied by His Honour Mr Justice Hosking. Air P. S. K. Macnssey represented tho Crown and Mr H. F. O’Leary appeared for the accused. Air D. F. Skinner was foreman of the jury. Tho circumstances, as outlined by Mr Macassey, were of a most extraordinary and interesting character. For tho past twelve years the accused had been employed as foreman painter by Martin and Co. During a period of three years Collins had been receiving anonymous letters which, at first, attacked his moral character. Tho letters whioh tho prosecution relied on, however, were one writtten on October 13th, 1918, and one on February sth, 1919. At first the letters were received at tho rate of about one a month, but during the last twelve months they became more frequent. Following the letters attacking his moral character, Collins received demands for money, and later threatening letters were received. On October 13th Collins received a letter in which the writer threatened to take his life unless £lO was deposited in a horse-trough. The letter, which was dated February sth, was headed “Anywhere,” and road:—“Don’t think I am joking, Alick. I will bo hung for you. On the 13/2/19 you will be lying low. Give me tho money I have asked you for, and save your life. My plans aro laid, and on Brooklyn heights you will breathe your last. Probably this is my last letter. 13 13 13 13. Money I must have or your life, and perhaps your wife.” At tho bottom of this letter was a skull and crossbones. The climax came about a week after the last incident, when Collins was »<iiprised and alarmed to receive a box of chocolates accompanied by a note. Ho immediately detected a strong smell about the chocolates, arid it was subsequently ascertained that they had been covered with nitric acid._ The letter accompanying the delicacies wished Collins “Many happy returns,” and recommended Collins to give some to his wife. The prosecution connected the accused with this because a bottle of nitric acid was afterwards found in the office occupied by the accused. The label on 'ho bottle "was wet when inspected by r)e-tcotive-Sorgoant Scott, which indicated that tho acid had recently been used. Martin stated that ho used the acid for a legitimate purpose. Another pecu-

liar feature was that most of the letters were written on pay-sheet paper specially prepared for tile firm. This paper was kept in a drawer in charge of the accused. As a rule, the letters were received by Collins through the post, but during the past twelve months two ox three letters were left on the shop counter. The two letters mentioned in the indictment were written in pencil. The October letter referred to a contemplated holiday at Plimmorton, and warned Collins that he would not return to his home alive unless £lO was placed in a horse-trough. Some of the let-tors were shown to accused, who expressed his horror and offered to help Collins to discover the culprit. With regard to the last letter, accused asked and was given permission to cut off a tiny strip of paper.' His reason for doing this, he said, was to enable him to find out where the paper came from. Some of the envelopes used were also similar to those in use in the office. Since February 13th Collins had not received any anonymous etters. Mr Macassey said that the prosecution would roly to some considerable extent on the handwriting. Ho would call Mr Walter Dinnie, the handwriting expert, to show that the writing in the letters sent to Collins was similar to the handwriting of Martin. Evidence was hoard similar to that given in the lower court. In reply to Mr O’Leary, Collins said that he and his wife had been much distressed by the letters. He was on friendly terms with Martin, and had often discussed the matter with him. When shown the letters demanding money, the accused never suggested that he should pay up and end the trouble. Accused had secured medicine for witness’s wife, who was in ill-health, and if be had had designs on her he could very easily have tampered with the medicine. Under cross-examination by Mr O’Leary, Montagu S. Martin, managing director of Robert Martin, Ltd., said thait the office of the accused was often unlocked at night. The office was near the 'right-of-way, and anybody could get into the store supposing* the person got over or under the gate. Tfie accused’s office was accessible to employees of the firm, and also to others. Ho admitted that painters used acids for testing purposes. _ _ In the ensuing evidence jit was shown that relatives of Collins had also received anonymous letters referring to Collins’s moral character.' Daniel Cunningham, brother-in-law of Collins, -who received in all four letters, stated, in reply to Mr O’Leary, that following the receipt of the letter dated February sth, he placed a parcel resembling money in a trough in Ohiro road, and waited till late at ( night for eventualities. He saw a man’ hanging about in the near vicinity, and went up and spoke to him. This man was not the accused. Walter Dlniiie, handwriting expert, said, in his opinion, the anonymous letters were all written hy the same person. It was quite obvious that the letters were all written in a carefullydisguised handwriting. Witness had also compared the anonymous letters with (the letters admitted to he in accused’s handwriting, and his opinion was that -they Were written by the same person.

During his cross-examination of the witness, Mr O’Leary produced a letter written by a third person. The letter consisted of a testimonial' expressing sympathy with the accused in his trouble. His Honour refused to admit tho letter on the ground that it had a distinct bearing on the case. It was explained by Mr O’Leary' that the letter came into his hands quite by chance, nstj as (the writing showed some similarity to the hand--writing on some of the exhibits, he thought it his duty to place it before the court. His Honour stated that he would adjourn the case to enable Mr O’Leary to bring another sample of the writing of the same individual, preferably something written before the prosecution was commenced, trailing this, consideration would be given to the question of allowing the letter now produced being submitted to the court.

It was, therefore, decided to adjourn the hearing until 10 o’clock this morning.