CURIOSITIES OF EVIDENCE.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIII, Issue 9110, 1 April 1908, Page 7

CURIOSITIES OF EVIDENCE.

Evidence and its relation to the law governing the crime of perjury ig becoming more and more an absorbing topic.- and„one of the most interesting chapters in Mr H. L Adam’s “ThS” Story of Crime” YWerner Laurie) is devoted to the curiosities of evidence. Mr Adam illustrates in this chapter a point which several recent trials have bought home to us, namely, the unite extraordinary importance of trifles in-matters of life and death. For example, an assistant master was charged with murdering his headmaster, and the, most important point for the defence hinged on the merest trifle:— “One of the witnesses for the prosecution was a small boy, a pupil, who testified that he saw the prisoner emerge from the house and come up to the boys as they were, tossing coins in the air. He exclaimed, said the witness, ‘You don’t know how to toss coins; let me show yon, ’ at the same taking hold of. a coin and spinning it in the air. 'Whereupon the judge put this question to the witness: ‘Did the prisoner’s hand shake?’ to which the witness replied than it did not. That practically saved the prisoner’s life ; if the reply had been in the affirmative it would probably have sealed bis fate. The indues argued that it was highly improbable that a man could come fresh from such a violent deed as that and toss a coin in the air without his hand shaking. Opinion on this point, as the author notes, will probably be divided. . Hats have been from time to time exceedingly important, in the witness box. One night a policeman found a man lying unconscious on the pavement as the result of a brutal assault. Near ' him lay a common “bowler” hat, the only clue. Suspicious of a certain person, the police arrested him, in spite of having practically nothing definite ■ against him: “In addition to not being able to give a satisfactory account of his movements on the niglit in qne=fcion. it was also found that the ' “bowler” hat in question fitted him • like a glove. He was accordingly arrested and charged with the prime, ■ the hat being the chief evidence against him. Counsel for the defence, however; dwelt so impressive!" ou the risk of accepting the evidence of a hat which was so commonly worn by men of his class that the jury acquitted prisoner, and he was discharged. Before leaving the dock he turned to the judge, aud, pointing to the hat in court, said, “My lord, can I ’ave my ’at.?’ ” Circumstantial evidence, however, is admittedly dangerous, and proved particularly so in the Sheffield industrial riots, during, which a man was charged with throwing a bomb. A woman, in this case, gave clear aud minute evidence against the prisoner, which proved in the end most dangerously misleading. It was absolutely true that the prisoner had run, as the woman persisted, from the scene of the crime, thus his coat had been caught on the hook outside a batcher’s shop, and that, having it torn away, he had disappeared. These things were true, and yet the prisoner had not thrown the bomb. He had seen, however, the man who had thrown the bomb and he was running away merely 'to save himself! These facts came out in spite of the woman’s accurate circumstantial evidence. Women prove, as a rule, imperturbable witnesses. They are also intrepid in another capacity. “It is a generally accepted fact,” writes Mr Adam, “that women undergo the ordeal of the dock far better than men, and I have witnessed repeated instances of it. A man will collapse quicker than a woman. It is a curious trait, this hut I suppose it is that a man’s nervous system is more highly strung and sensitive than a woman’s and his moral responsibility is , keener. When a woman lias made up her mind to remain firm through such an ordeal she manages to steel her nerves most effectually, and to maintain her outward composure to the very end.” To return to the curiosities of evidence, the author retells a favourite story of the late Baron Huddlestone, the ‘‘Last of the Barons,” as he was,called. It was in the days when robbery was regarded as a capital offence, and a man was charged with robbery coupled with violence. While the trial was proceeding a stranger appeared at the neighbouring inn. Apparently on a holiday, he questioned the landlord as to what places of interest in the neighbourhood it would-be worth while visiting. The landlord immediately suggested the Assize Court, and procured admission for the stranger, who entered the court -just as the convicted prisoner was being asked by the judge if be had anything further to say. _ The prisoner protested that he was innocent and that he had been miles away at the time of the robbery; “The judge commented that he was unable to prove this, when the prisoner suddenly caught sight of the stranger just entering the court, and, pointing to him, exclaimed, “Yes; there’s a man that can prove it! Ask him! On the day in question I carried his portmanteau on to a vessel at Dover. It came open, and a toothbrush fell out, and I put it back after it had been wiped. Ask himl” The stranger, who appeared taken aback by this sudden recognition, was referred to, and said he was unable to remember the incident ■at the moment, but that if he were allowed to refer to his diary he !■ would be able to say for certain.” The diary was at once fetched from the inn, and an entry in it on the . date of the crime confirmed the story of the prisoner, who was discharged. Some time afterwards, however, the prisoner and his confederate from the inn were hanged for sheep stealing. In this chapter, too, the author gives us some interesting notes on ‘‘doubles, ’ ’ who have so often figured in cases requiring the proving of an alibi. Mr Adam concludes this interesting and useful treatise with a plea for thei more intelligent treatment of the criminal, protesting that you should “look below the surface for the cause ere you chastise the agent for the effect. ”