that the mother and grandmother of the boy were unable to identify the prisoners, and it was only after this was found out that the boy was produced, the most important witness, to do so. Was it proved to the satisfaction of the jury that the prisoners were present at the mur- der ? He admitted it might be trus that they came before the jury with a grave stain upon their characters, that they were possibly participating in the fruits of the robbery, but the jury were not trying whether they were guilty of felonionsly receiving, but whether the Crown had brought before them such evidence as would carry to their minds and hearts in the most conclusive and unequivocal manner the conviction that these men were and inust have been present at the murder. Whatever other crime those men might have been guilty of they were entitled to justice in this matter and he left their lives in the hands of the jury, oon- fident in a verdict of acquit
$
The Attorney-General said it was by no means always the duty of the prosecution in cases of this kind to avail themselves of the right of reply after the Counsel for the dofence had been beard. It was only in exceptional circumstances where i it was considered desirable to exercise that right. but after the observations made by his learned friend he thought it only right and proper on the part of the prosecution and for the assis- tance of the Court that be should make a few comments upon the objections which had been urged to the case put forward by the prosecu tion, and point out how little they could be made to apply. His learned friend had adopt- ed a method of addressing the jury which was new to that court and was contrary to all rules for the defence addressing the court. He had! told them what his impressions were, what his ideas were, what his beliefs were, of the lights | that had flashed upon him and so on. He must ask them to lay aside all consideration of these. It was not a proper line of argument to put to a jury nor bue upon which they could come to any conclusion. Their verdict must rest upon the facts submitted to their consideration and not upon any theory laid down by his learned friend or any one else. He quite agreed with what his friend said, that nothing could be more serious than the responsibility which rested upon them in a case of this kind, But they must remember there were two sides to the question. They were responsible to the prisoners that their verdiet should not be rashly nor improvidently arrived at and that they should have the benefit of suy substantial doubt, but on the other hand they were not one whit less responsible to the Crown. If there was no real, reasonable or substantial ground for doubt they must discharge the duty which rested upon them and find the prisonETS guilty. It was not on some possible suspicion unsupported by evidence that they were to act, it must be a reasonable doubt or substantial defect, Now he asked them upon a view of the facts. "and not upon a review of what he could not help calling the misleading and distorted version of them put before them by his friend, were there any real or substantial grounds for believing that the evidence of the boy, upon whom, he admitted, the prosecution mainly relied, was fraudulent and was produced for the villainous purpose of taking away these two men's lives. As regards the main facts that there was a barglary, an armed attack, and in the course of that attack deceased was murdered, there could be no question. The first point against the prî. soners was their identification by the boy. Then the prisoners were arrested with clothing in their possession which was identified as having been taken from the touse where the murder-ceone- red. Again the prisoners were both armed, when. arrested, in the way the boy stated they were armed when they attacked the premises. Then one had in his possession a number of bullets wrapped in a rag which was identified as being on the premises on the night of the attack.
If one prisoner had been found so armed or with one bundle of clothing, that would be strong evidence against him, but when they found two men armed and both carrying bundles cornected with (the robbery in question and each man making a different excuse, the case was all the stronger against them. Unless they disbelieved the evid- ence of the Police Inspector, the boy was brought up to the Police Station and the | identification took place under all the usual and proper guarantees for rendering it a bona fide one. A good deal had been said about the little boy not being F Christian and not being subject to the same
Mora
Ho!
His.
moral influence as a European child. apprehended that the Courts of Justice in the rules laid down for receiving evidence hud been actuated more by a knowledge of human nature than by the relative value of Christian or other system of morals. The courts held that if a child could give evidence he is generally one of the best witnesses that could be had. impressions were fresh and more vivid, and his motives less open to suspicion as regards interest than those of a witness of more mature age, and he would put it to the jury that this little boy was not: abad illustration of that. From the beginning to the end of the case there had not been a con tradiction of evidence, there had not been a fact adduced to lead them to doubt the honesty and bona fides of any one witness, or to believe that they were parties to the villainous fraud which had for its purpose the marder of the two men in the dock.
His Lordship, in his address to the jury, said the case was a most important one and he felt quite sure that they had paid every attention to the evidence and would give the utmost consi- deration to their verdict. As to the general and main features of the case they would have but little doubt. The whole defence was based upon the identification of the two prisoners. The charge made was one of murder. With refer- ence to the law on the case he thought the. Attorney General had stated it very fairly and Mr. Robinson, he understood, agreed with bim, that if a gang of men were engaged in an unlawful undertaking and if in carrying it out they killed a man they were all equally guilty of murder, whether the man who fired the fatal shot was or was not known. There was another point which he trust also mention. It was with regard to "The recent possession of property. In ordinary cases the recent possession of pro- perty raised the presumption-it was not con. elusive--that the person in whose posses- sion it was found was either the thief or the receiver, and in cases of burglary accompan- ied by murder, a like inference could be drawn that the person, in whose possession was found tle property stolen at the time of the murder, was present when the murder was committed. It had been said that there were discrepancies in the evidence, but, as had been said, there were often discrepancies in truthful stories, dis- orepancies, that was, in small details. His Lord- ship then read over to the jury the evidence from his notes of the principal witnesses. Continuing he said, of course, if the jury believed the evi- dance of the boy, and he must say that he gave his evidenco straightforwardly and carefully, if they thought no reasonable doubt had heen cast upon it, if his evidence as given before them did not differ from that given at the Magistracy, they would have very little doubt as to what their verdict must be. But in addition to that evidence they must remember there was eviden: ● of recent possession and the evidence of the armos being found upon them. They had heard a great deal about fraudulent proceedingsand the concoct- ing of evidence, but they must remember there were certain hard dry facts to be got over. There was not one tittle of evidence to support the theory of frand. There, were certain isolated facts upon which the counsel for the defence had made that suggestion, but there was no direct evidence in support of it. If the jury came to the conclusion that the two prisoners were properly identified, that they were present on the night in question, notwithstanding that they did not know, nor was it known to anybody, who had fired the fatal shot, they were bound to return a verdict of guilty, however disagree- able it might be, however reluctant they might be, however contrary it might be to their prin- ciples to bring in a verdict which in the ordin- ary course of events meant death to the prisoners. After the oath they had taken, if upon the evid- ence they concluded that these two men were presout at the attack and took part in the burglary, their duty was clear, and the only true verdict they could give was one of guilty. A great judge had said, and well said, that it was better to spare ten guilty men than to hang ons innocent man. If therefore they had any reason- able doubt, not a mere fanciful doubt, but a doubt which they could own to themselves was a reason- able one, the prisoners were entitled to a verdict of acquittal.
The jury then retired to consider their verdict and after an absence of about a quarter of an hour returned an unanimous verdict of guilty against both prisoners.
His Lordship, having put on the black cap. said-Prisoners at the bar, after a painful trial
14
L
446
Page 450Page 451