SUPREME COURT.—CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 136, 15 September 1870, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.— CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Thursday, Bth September. (Before Ris Honour Mr. Justice Chapman.) THE GOLD ROBBERY AT CLYDE. The following is His Honor's summing up in this case : — The question which the jury had to determine was not so extensive a one as it would have been had they been trying the principal offender for larcency, for the whole question turned upon the extent to which the approver's evidence had been confirmed by independent testimony. In the first place the approver's evidence came before them tainted with great suspicion. In cross-examination Rennie admitted that he expected part of the reward, and had also been promised a pardon by the Government. Of his right to obtain that pardon, in accordance with the terms of the proclamation in the "Gazette," there could be no doubt whatever. That was one motive. As to Rennie's impression that he would receive part of the reward, he (the learned judge) was inclined to think that Rennie was mistaken, but the impression that he would do so was in his mind, and he therefore went into the witness-box with what to him was a very great game to play. Circumstances occurred about the 13th August to cast very strong suspicion upon Rennie ; and on the 14th the police captured him. It might be that Rennie had sagacity enough to see the ease against him ; and the proclamation which had been posted about the place for the precediug eight days occurred to his mind, and questions passed between himself and the police about the reward. Smith was very cautious ; gave the prisoner the usual warning ; told him the amount of the reward, and showed him a printed copy of the proclamation. Then perhaps it occurred to Rennie that he had better confess. Now, what was the use of his confessing without an accomplice, for unless there was an accomplice in the case, he would neither be entitled to the pardon nor to any portion of the reward, to which he thought he would otherwise be entitled? Rennie's position in Court was precisely this — If he failed to convict the prisoner, then he stepped into the dock immediately after the failure, and was sentenced by the judge. The fate of the man in the dock meant to Rennie, on the one side, a considerable term of imprisonment ; and on the other, pardon, and, as he thought, reward also. The jury must take this fact into consideration in weighing Rennie's testimony, even if there were no rules which required corroboration of it as being the evidence of an approver. If the jury chose to take the bit in their mouths, and return a verdict of guilty, on the unsupported testimony of Rennie, no Court in the country could set aside their verdict, upon that ground alone ; and all that could be done would be for the Judsje to recommend the Governor to exercise his right to pardon. They would see that the witness had a motive for telling a series of lies in the witness-box ; and it was their duty to keep that motive continually in their minds, and to weigh his evidence in the strictest and nicestbalam-e. It became more incumbent upon them to do so when they were informed that their verdict could not be set aside, because they had convicted on Rennie's uncorroborated evidence. As to the state of the law about corroboration, it was asserted, although it seemed to him that what the judges had said on the subject amounted almost to a distinction without a difference, that the law did not require an informer's testimony to be corroborated, but that it was a practice which judges had always to follow, that such evidence required confirmation He apprehended that, if there was any distinction between the law and practice in the matter, it was that the verdict of a jury could not be set aside bcause the approver's evidence had not been confirmed. The result which he drew from numerous cases in which this point had arisen and been decided, was this : The line could be easily drawn. First, it was by no means necessary that the approver's testimony should be confirmed in everything. It must be quite obvious that if the prosecution were able to confirm it in every particular, they could do without him. That was one side of the matter. The other side was that an accomplice, more especially when he was a man who, as in this case, had done the whole work himself, must' as a matter of course, be able to describe exactly how he did it, and if he were confirmed in any one of these particulars, was very natural that such confirmation should be afforded. But how did such corroboration affect another prisoner ? For ininstance, Rennie affirmed that he took out three screws of the lock. Two witnesses who went inside the lock-up on the next morning, state that the screws were missing. That was not the sort of confirmation which practice, and he would even venture to say the law, required to justify conviction. The confirmation required was corroboration of some sort connecting the prisoner with the offence or some part of the offence, or with some transaction that would enable the jury to decide whether that portion of the testimony of the accomplice which goes to connect the prisoner with it is true or false. In other words, the law regards

the accomplice when he gets into the witness-box as a tainted witness, ami therefore requires that the jury should have something to enable them to deterniiue whether to believe him or not. Every accomplice that turned Queen's evidence had a strong motive to convict the prisoner, because it was upon the conviction that his own pardon depended. The jury were therefore required to take circumstances of corroboration, not as matters of importance in themselves, but as enabling them to judge of the value of the accomplice's testimony. When the present jury retired from the box they must ask themselves, shall we or shall we not — ought we or ought we not — to believe this witness 1 and if they came to the conclusion that the evidence was open to doubt, then came in another rule of law, and they must give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt. What were the circumstances relied upon for -i corroboration in this case. They were numerous, but each was extremely ' trival in intrinsic value. There was not a very strong circumstance among them, that might not be accounted for in other ways ; therefore, if any one, or even two, of these corroborative facts had stood alone, it would have been his duty to say that was not enough ; but inasmuch as there was a great number, it would be for the jury to decide upon their total value. He merely said, consider them separately, and then altogether, and ask your own consciences whether they ought to be admitted as sufficient corroboration of the approver's testimony, seeing his strong motive to make a ease out against the prisoner. It had been properly said, for his own purpose, by Mr. Haggitt, that there was no difference between a larceny for a small amount and for a large. True, there was no difference in the punishment save that a discretion was left to the judge ; but this larceny was of so gigantic a nature that it induced the parties interested to offer a very high reward, and therefore a greater temptation was offered to a witness disposed to violate the truth for the sake of convicting some one as his fellow-offender than was the case in 99 larcenies out of one 100 that came before the Court. A higher responsibility was thus cast upon the jury. His Honour then proceeded to comment at length upon the evidence. It was evident that one man could commit the robbery, because one man did do it ; and all that was required to enable one man to steal the treasure was accurate information of the state of the place. Was an accommplice necessary for this ; or could not Rennie have obtained the information for himself by careful enquiry ? Ther j were discrepancies in Rennie's evidence about the key, and the letter which he said M'Lennun left at Elliott's, but the general aspect of his testimony was that it was clearly and consecutively delivered, and so far as his own robbery was concerned, might be accepted as true. The question which the jury had to decide was — Are these several little circumstances of corroboration such as to induce us to give credit to Rennie's testimony ? If they believed that testimony to be true, it was competent for them to find a verdict against the prisoner ; but if they thought there was no corroboration, and that so far as the prisoner was concerned, Rennie had been concocting a story for the purpose of obtaining the reward, they would, of course, acquit the prisoner. If they h d any reasonable doubt on this question, they would give him the benefit of the doubt. At the close of his Honour's remarks, the audience strongly manifested their approval The jury retired at 8 o'clock, and returned into Court at five minutes to 9, with a verdict of not Guilty. The announcement was received with clapping of hands and cheering by the spectators. One lad was taken into custody, and sentenced to 24 hours' imprisonment for contempt of Court, but was released, by direction of His Honour, a few minutes afterwards. Mr Haggitt stated that he did not intend to proceed with the other indictment against M'Lenuan, who was then liberated. George Rennie was then placed in the dock. In reply to the usual question he said that he was 35 years of age, and wished to call witnesses as to character. Constable Hunt deposed that he had known prisoner for about twelve months, and had considered his character to be very good, regarding prisoner as an upright, industrious, and honest man. The learned Judge : You have nothing against him until this time ? Witness : No, Tour Honor. G. P. Farquhar was then called, at Rennie's request, but did not appear. The learned Judge, addressing the prisoner, said : You have pleaded guilty to two indictments. One of them charges you with stealing a large amount of property belonging to the Bank of New South Wales, and the other with stealing £1070 in money and 200ozs. of gold, the property of the corporation called the Bank of New Zealand. It is fortunate for you that yon have been indicted for larceny only, otherwise the sentence would have been much more severe. The sentence of the Court is, on the first indictment, that you be kept to penal servitude on the roads for three years ; and on the second indictment, that you also be kept to penal servitude on the

ronrls for three years ; the sentences to be accumulative. The prisoner was then removed.