THE TIMARU RIOTS.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2420, 18 December 1880, Page 2

THE TIMARU RIOTS.

The Following was the judgment delivered yesterday by His Honor Judge Johnston in the appeal case of Eegina v O’jDriscoll and others :—I took time to give judgment in this case, and, delayed the expression of my opinion with the consent of counsel on both sides, in order that I might have an opportunity of considering more fulty certain points on which I entertaind doubts. I am now of opinion that there ought not to be a new trial on either of the grounds suggested in the case. In the first place, as to the question put by the learned Judge respecting former

processions, there may be some doubt as to its revelancy to the guilt or innocence of the accused, and although it might to some extent, influence the mind of the Judge as to the amount of punishment to be awarded, it would undoubtedly have been a proper question fqr-him to ask after the conviction. I am not prepared to say that the question and answer were clearly irrelevant. and that the evidence was improperly received ; but I am of opinion that if it was irrelevant, the rest of the evidence against the accused was so amply sufficient to support the conviction, that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to grant a new trial. I think the ‘minds of the jury could not have been so influenced by (he evidence in question, (hat they could have found the prisoners guilty, if from all the rest of the evidence they had anj r doubt whatever of their guilt. It would be a dangerous doctrine to hi}’ down that an answer to a question asked by a Judge at a trial, which was not strictly relevant, but would not have influenced a jury so as to effect their verdict, should be held to be a good ground for a new trial. As to (he second point, which affects O’Driscoll only, I am of opinion beyond all doubt, that the letter iu his handwriting, found in Mojuiahnids pocket two days after the riot, was evidence against O’Driscoll. It was in his handwriting, and it had passed from O’Driscoll to Moynahan. Whether Moynahan received it before or after the riot, it clearly had emanated from O’Driscoll, and it related to the riot which actually took place on the 2(Jth, and in which O’Driscoll took part. The •re were therefore sufficient facts from which a jury might infer that it was despatched before the riot, although I do not think that it was necessary to prove that fact in order to make it evidence against O’Driscoll. On these grounds lam of opinion that the District Court was right in refusing to grant a new trial to all the defendants indicted or to O’Driscoll alone.