REGINA v, M'GAHEY.

Inangahua Times, Volume II, Issue II, 5 October 1881, Page 2

REGINA v, M'GAHEY.

The following is the summing nn of his Honor. Judge Richmond at Hokitika, in tbe above case :— i J fis Honor snid tin's was a case in which the evidence was circumstantial. It rarely happened that a charge of mur* der was supported by the testimony of an eye*witness. There was one remark of the prisoner's counsel with whioh be did not agree. Mr Guinness said, if they took one link from the chain of evidence, the case failed. A chain depended on a single link. Somo cases were like a chain, others like a faggot, a bundle of sticks. A faggot could spare a good many of its weakest sticks. In the present case there was more of the faggot than the- chain, lie. proposed to put the proofs before the fury in the order in which they presented themselves to his mind. The first question was, were the jury satisfied that John Bell was murdered on the morning of Satnrday, April 16th, That was tbe corpus delicti, the 1 body of the offence. (His Honor then reviewed the evidence of Cereseto, Lecher, Carey, Bennett, Penniall, and others on this point.) The evidence went tp show that Bell was probably killed, when a cow was bailed up, and he was sitting on a stool, milking it. It was ridiculous to imagine that the kick of a cow could have inflicted the in* jaries described by Dr Thorpe, whatever a kick from a horse might r have done. The facts all went to*fix the probable .time of the murder at Satnrday forenoon. There wns evidence of a trail of a body being dragged, from the spot whero the mark of the head was on the ground, to the ealfpen. No doubt Eell was mur* dered. and it was their awful duty to say who had committed the crime. There were certain small discrepancies in the evidence, as there was in all human testimony. Without heteredoxy, be might say that the four Evangelists did not exactly agree, but people did not therefore disbelieve them. There was some mys* tery about the mode of the murder. A gun was fired, but there were no gun-shot wounds and no traces of a shot being fired. It was immaterial how the murder was effected. The fact of the firearm being discharged made it difficult to understand why the murderer should have fired and so given alarm. It may have been, as the Crown Prosecutor suggested that the murderer fired, missed, and tben.rusbed in and 'brained his vie* tim. There, was no sign of tbe house heing rummaged as if- -by a common criminal. The murder was cansed hy no ordinary motive. Now he passed to the facts as implicating the prisoner. As yet there were few circumstances pointing to the prisoner. Tbere was the fact tbat the murder was not committed for the sake of gain or robbery, but from some other motive. There were the two pieces of gun, b«,t these were not identified. In this second part of tbe case the first point was the whereabouts of the prisoner on the night before the murder, and the morning of the murder. Prisoner slept at Gallagher's on Friday night. Gallagher's was four miles from Larry's Creek. Prisoner left Gallagher's between six and seven on the morning of the murder, and bad ample time to get through tbe bush to Bell's by the time when the murder must bave beeu done. Wbere was the prisoner on that fores noon ? No one saw hiro. He was no doubt lurking in the bush. Tbe inference from this must be qualified by tbe fact tbat a warrant was out for prisoner, and a constable was looking for him. Then, secondly, there were the threats of the prisoner. He did not look like a man who would do such a deed, but tbere was an immense mass of testimony of the use of threats by the 'prisoner of a most sanguinary nature against the murdered man- On the very evening before the murder he made them, and some of these threats were literally fulfilled as regarded Bell. His were knocked out. This wa3 a momentous part of the case. There were at least six witnesses to such threats. Next, his Honor opened the evidence to tbe finding of the ramrod, and defended the witness Smart from the imputations cast upon him by Mr Guinness and tba atrocious suggested that be < (Smart,) had committed the crime. Next what became of the prisoner after the murder? He turned up, to all appears J

mice, a fuglive at An'onio's Flat, on tin Monday evening following the murdi: without his gun wet and miserable. Nobody appeared to have seen any thing of him in the interval. He said Jihad been out prospecting, but that wai • a lie. \Vhat had become of the gun i lie confessed it vras unfortunate tb< police did not take the prisoner to tht grarel pit, when he offered to fin., it. But still why had the gun not beer ' produced? What man in Court woud not have felt relieved if that had beer done, and the gun found ? That the the prisoner had left his gun in a gravel dit, was a proof he was a fugitive ; but, the prisoner might have been flying from the police who^'had a warrant for himThat, however, was not a theory which commended to his mind. With regard fo the evidence of the police, they were all decent honest sort of men.- They h»d showed however a want of acumen in this fcase- His Honor tben reviewed the points urged for the defence, and held that the strongest was tbo* suggestion hy the prisoner's counsel, that the prisoner was keeping out of the way of the war* rant in the hands of the police and the defective search forthe gun. His * Honor" I*fieTT^pre!^Sae_lHff^roake1 * fieTT^pre!^Sae_l Hff^ro ake ' Some general observations. He said the case was of a most distressing kind. The charge was made against an old set" tier, hitherto a well conducted roao Possibly he might bave had provocation, but neither tho Court nor the jury eou' d come to any conclusion as to the merits of the dispute between Bell and tho prisoner, because they did not know the facts of tbe case, There were many shades even in the fearfnl crime of murder. It was difficult to define them, and it was well in many cases to leave to the higher authority th« mitigation of punishment. There were often mitigiting circumstances, but these were not for the consideration of tbo jury. The proved adultery cf a wife was no excuse, in law, for. tho premeditated murder of the adulterer or the wife. It migbl be a good ground for mitigation. It would be a dangerous doctrine to lay dowu that a man might kill anyone he euspected of adultery with his wife. No one would then be safe fro_n a jealous man, for * To tbe jealous, trifles light as air, are con« firmations strongias proofs of holy writ.' And. then there would be danger oif bloody encounters, such as existed unfortunately in portions of tbe vast dominions of a kindred people. In some place; it was a question who was quickest with what are called 'shooting irons.' Men knowing they were liable to attaok wonld always be ready for defence. They were not in tbis case entitled io cay that any adultery had been committed. They could not judge of the merits of the case, whether the prisoner was blameless or whether his own brutal conduct contributed to tbe result. Theee were reasons why they should not take into account whether Bell was an adulterer or not. There was another paint. The prisoner's mind unhinged by brooding over his injuries or supposed injuries they might give effect to that opinion if they found him guilty. There was no evidence to acquit the prisoner on the ground 'of insanity. If he did the deed he knew he was committing it: Though his mind might be unhinged there was nothing to justify the uot ion that he was insane, in the sense which would be an answer to the present charge. He did not know What expectation the public had formed. It ought to have none. And it was a bad rule for a jury, or anyone else to do aa they were^expected to do. They should do their duty, which was all that the country had a right to expect from tbem. Thoy should do it honestly simply, without reference to outside opinion, without regard to consequence to themselves or to others: ■