PIHA CASE

Wairarapa Times-Age, 26 May 1939, Page 6

PIHA CASE

JURY’S FINDING BOTH MEN GUILTY ON TWO COUNTS. ACQUITTED ON CONSPIRACY . CHARGE. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) AUCKLAND, May 25. After a retirement of more than five hours tonight, the jury in the Piha trial found Gordon Robert McKay, aged 43,alias Tom Bowlands, wool and hide dealer, and James Arthur Talbot, aged 38, labourer, guilty on the following charges: (1) That, on or about February 12, they wilfully set fire to a dwel-ling-house, thereby committing arson; (2) that, on or about February 10, they interfered with a dead human body. They found both accused not guilty on a further charge of conspiring by deceit to defraud the Mutual Life and Citizens Insurance Company, Limited, Sydney, of £25.500 by representing that McKay was dead. Before adjourning the Supreme Court last night, Mr Justice Fair paid a tribute to the work of the police in the Piha case. “I think I should express my appreciation of the very full and competent work done by the police officers engaged in the inquiry and also their work in arranging the evidence, both for the preliminary investigation and for this Court.” his Honour said. “The prompt detection and punishment of crime is one of the greatest factors in suppressing it, and the capable presentation of evidence has resulted in a large number of witnesses testifying to a large number of facts in a comparatively short space of time. I now desire to thank the jury for the very careful consideration they have given the case.”

When the presentation of the Crown’s case ended, both defending counsel said that they did not intend to call evidence. They, addressed the jury, after which his Honour, Mr Justice Fair, summed up and the jury retired. JUDGE’S SUMMING UP. A comprehensive survey of the case, its legal aspects, and the duty of the jury, was given by Mr Justice Fair in his summing up. His Honour said the evidence brought by the Crown was circumstantial evidence, drawn from a large number of facts, from which, the Crown said, could only be drawn the inference that each of the accused was guilty of the offences with which he was charged. Direct evidence, the evidence of witnesses who had seen something, was not, in a large number of cases, readily available, and a case had often to be proved with circumstantial evidence. It often happened that, if each fact in circumstantial evidence were taken by itself, it would not carry the case very far, but, if one were to take a mass of facts cumulatively, it might afford proof of guilt of an accused person. Counsel had been correct in stating that the onus of proof was on the Crown, his Honour continued. If there was any doubt, accused were entitled to the benefit of it. He Would also warn the jury to exclude from its mind any other knowledge other than that secured during the relation of evidence by witnesses. The matter should be approached impartially. Each charge had to be considered separately, and in the light of the evidence applicable to the charge. It would be wise to consider first the charge of improperly interfering with Shine’s remains, in relation to McKay, and him alone; then the charge of arson. When the jurymen had' considered the two counts m relation to McKay, they then should consider them in relation to Talbot, and the evidence against him. They then should turn to the third count, conspiracy to defraud, which had certain special features. “The law says that either both have to be convicted of conspiracy, or neither,” his Honour said. “The charge is that McKay and Talbot _ conspired each with the other. You will be careful to avoid a feeling' that, if you find accused guilty on one count, you should find him guilty on the second. Consider them independently, though much of the. evidence is directed toward both.”

He added that, with the first two counts, statements by Talbot were not admissible against McKay. It was the duty of the Crown to leave no gaps, but to connect up each link with every other. They might think that the majority of the evidence stood upcontradicted, and established the charges which the Crown made.

In regard to the charge of interfering with a dead human body, against McKay, there was evidence, not seriously questioned, that McKay inquired on the morning of February 9 about Shine’s burial place, and that he questioned Shine’s son about his father’s teeth. There was evidence that McKay hired a rental car, and that both accused made inquiries for a garage at Avondale; though they were living at Freeman’s Bay.

McKay was seen leaving Mrs Hearling’s garage with Talbot at 3 o’clock on the Saturday afternoon, and, after that, a sacking bundle was.gone. It had been said' that there was no evidence to show that the bundle was taken at that time, but they might think, that point relatively unimportant. \ The Government Analyst gave evidence that the fire appeared to have attained a heat far greater than would be expected from the ordinary burning of a house.

The Crown went, on to prove that the body found in the ruins at Piha was that of Patrick Henry Shine. They might think that the crucial facts were that the remains of a dead body were found in the ruins of the Piha fire, that immediately after the fire McKay disappeared, that he was insured for £40,000, and that he had a wife and family who stood to gain if he died.

They were entitled' to consider in the evidence against McKay that, when arrested, he denied that he was McKay, gave- no explanation of his movements, no explanation of his disappearance after the fire, and 1 no explanation of how the body came to be there.

If satisfied on these- points, they would find McKay guilty on the count of interfering with a dead body. The}' would next consider the charge of arson against McKay. For him to be guilty it was not necessary that he should have set fire to the place with his own hands. If they found him guilty of interfering with the body, they might think that the fire was part of a plan and that, though he was not actually present, he had arranged for the fire to take place. As far as Talbot was concerned, they would bear in mind the principle that any person who did anything to aid and abet another in the commission of a crime was liable himself to be convicted of that crime.

Did the evidence satisfy them that Talbot aided and abetted McKay in improper interference with a dead body and in the burning of the cottage? The Crown relied on the constant and close association between Talbot and McKay for 12 years at least, and on the close association of the two after they came to Auckland. Talbot was present when the car was hired and assisted in the search for the garage at Avondale, and that might make them think that Talbot would inquire why a garage was being hired in that locality.

If they found that the bundle was in the car on the Saturday afternoon and was taken out to Piha, the Crown said that then Talbot must have known that Shine's dead body was in the car. They would remember that Mr Terry had said there was no proof that the bundle was in the car. Could McKay have taken the body out to Piha without Talbot knowing it?

Sc far as the conduct of Talbot at Piha was concerned, both at the fire and afterward, was it consistent with his honestly believing it was McKay who was burned in the bedroom? The jury might .think that depended upon the preliminary question of whether Talbot knew Shine’s body was in the car when it went from Mrs Hearling’s garage to the bach at Piha. Some might think his attitude was that of a man who, either was upset at the loss of his friend, or, if he knew a fraud was to be attempted, was anxious that there should be- no suspicion aroused. If there were any doubt. Talbot should be acquitted on the first two counts. Upon - the question of conspiracy to defraud, the jury had to consider only whether the evidence satisfied- the

jurymen that McKay conspired with Talbot and that Talbot knowingly conspired and agreed with McKay and attempted to carry out frauds. Upon a request by Mr Noble,, his Honour placed a special issue before the jury: Did accused, before they reached New Zealand, come to an agreement to carry out the conspiracy alleged in the third count? Mr Terry said he objected to the issue, and asked to have his objection noted. He accepted the indictment as it stood. The jury then retired.