SUPREME COURT

CRIMINAL SITTINGS
Monday, May 26.
(Before His Honor Mr. Justice Williams.)
His Honor took his seat on the bench at 10.30 am.
GRAND JURY

The following gentlemen constituted the Grand Jury:-J. H. Morrison (foreman), Alexander Begg, Alexander Black, Walter Bull, James Burrowes, F. A. Cutten, D. G. Davidson, J. Fotheringham, Walter Gow, P. F. Kahlenberg, J. Mann, P. Miller, G. H. Moodie, A. Palmer, J. L. Passmore, A. Paterson, R. S. Rankin, R. C. Skeet, W. Wills, R. Young.

HIS HONOR'S CHARGE

His Honor charged the Grand Jury in the following terms:-Mr. Foreman and Gentlemen of the Grand Jury,- The calendar this morning contains the names of 12 persons, who are charged with various offences. Most of the offences are of the kind which commonly come before the court on these occasions. There are several cases where certain employees of the Union Company are charged with stealing paint, oil, and stores of that description. There is a person charged with stealing a cow; there are two persons charged with theft from a till; there is a charge of false pretences; there is a charge of assault and robbery; there is a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm; and there is a charge of criminal assault upon a girl. As to all those cases I think you will find no real difficulty. The most important case on the calendar is one where the accused is charged with murder. The facts of the case are peculiar. I do not propose to go into the evidence in detail, but I will just give you a very short sketch of the salient features of the case. The deceased was a woman. She lived at the time of the occurrence by herself in a house at Allanton. She was last seen alive at Allanton by a witness, Joseph Kreft, between 10 and 11 in the morning of Wednesday, 26th March, and at that time she was not sober. That was when she was last seen alive, but a witness, Hasler, passing her house the same evening, about 8 o'clock, heard her voice in the house. He heard no other voice in the house, but he heard her voice. So we have this: that the last that is seen of her is at 11 o'clock on the morning of the 26th, and that the last that is heard of her is at 8 o'clock in the evening on the same day. About half-past 8-that is, about half an hour after she was last heard of - her house was seen to be on fire. The neighbours go and find when they arrive there that the house is in a blaze, that the bedroom window is partly open, and that the door is closed, but neither snibbed nor locked. They see her body lying on its back in the kitchen. Then the police and the neighbours try to get the body out, and they succeed after some difficulty owing to the heat. The body is brought out considerably burnt. Then when they have time and look at it, it is found there is a one-pronged fork sticking, firmly fixed, in the heart. This one-pronged fork belonged to the deceased. The medical evidence is to the effect that is probable that this fork was stuck into the heart during the lifetime of the deceased. If that was so, then, of course, it follows that the deceased was either murdered or else that she stuck it into herself. Then comes the question of what is the connection of the accused with the affair. It appears that the accused and the deceased had formerly lived together, but they had ceased to live together at this time. The accused lived in a hut not far from the deceased's house by himself. On the evening, however of the previous day-of Tuesday, 25th March-accused had been at the deceased's house with a man named Switalla. They had been drinking there, and there had been a quarrel between the accused, Switalla, and the deceased. The accused was apparently jealous of Switalla. So that the accused had been in the deceased's house certainly the night before. Then on Wednesday, 26th, the day on the evening of which the death happened, the accused was seen in the neighbourhood the worse for drink. Shortly before 7 in the evening he was seen to go to the house of the deceased and try to get in. Two of the witnesses say they saw him go into the deceased's house about 7. However, if he did go in, he came out again, because about half-past 7 he turned up at the hotel close by and was there for about half an hour. Then when the fire was observed he was seen going to the fire. The next day the accused was arrested, and he stated that he had not seen the deceased since the night of the 25th, and had not been near her place since that night. That is a short summary of the salient features of the case, gentlemen. I need hardly remind you that in this case as in all the cases your function is not to decide finally on the guilt or the innocence of the accused. What you have to determine is whether the evidence brought before you discloses a prima facie case which the accused should be called upon to answer. If it does you should find a true bill. It does not disclose a prima facie case the bill should be ignored. Gentlemen, if you will kindly retire to your room the bills will be laid before you...

"OTAGO WITNESS" - JUNE 04, 1902 (Pg 50).

SUPREME COURT

CRIMINAL SITTINGS
Wednesday, June 4.
(Before His Honor Mr. Justice Williams.)
His Honor took his seat on the bench at half-past 10 o'clock.

THE ALLANTON MURDER

Hugh Sweeney was arraigned on a charge of having murdered one Annie Sinnott at Allanton on the 26th March last.

The Accused, who was defended by Mr. A. C. Hanlon, pleaded "Not Guilty."

The following gentlemen composed the jury: Messrs Charles Dickinson (foreman), Herbert H. Scales, James B. Lockhead, James Manning, James Jack, James L. Bell, Alfred Baker, William Bennett, Harry A. Robinson, George Crosbie, Frederick Barton, and William T. Ranger.

All the witnesses in the case were ordered to leave the court.

The Crown Prosecutor (Mr. J. F. M. Fraser) opened the facts of the case at length. The accused was a single man, living at Allanton in a one-roomed cottage on the opposite side of the road from the cottage occupied by the deceased. The deceased was a widow, and the evidence would show that for many years past the lives of the two had been interwoven. They sometimes cohabited as man and wife. The deceased was in receipt of a pension of about Ł2 a month. The evidence showed that she was addicted to drink and of intemperate habits, and that about the period when the alleged murder took place both parties were drinking. The case was a very complicated one, and the evidence voluminous. He would outline the movements of the accused and those of the deceased about the time of the murder, and then point to the matters that cast suspicion on the accused. Having dealt very fully with the movements of the parties, learned counsel took up the next point in his address and referred to the circumstances that pointed to the guilt of the accused. There was the evident unwillingness of the accused to let the man into the house. Then it would be proved that after the fire the accused went to Mrs. Kreft's house. Mrs. Kreft said to him, "That is awful about Mrs. Sinnott." Accused replied that he had not seen her since the night that they were all drinking together-the night previous to the fire. Mrs. Kreft said, "Hugh, I saw you at the window and door to-night," and accused replied that he was not at the house and that he had not put his foot across the road. Mr. Kreft said he had also seen the accused at the house that night, and the accused said, "I was not." Mr. Kreft thereupon remarked, "Well, if it was not you it was your ghost." Constable Carmody, who got the body out of the fire, had a conversation with the accused subsequently. The accused told the constable that he had not seen the deceased since 8 o'clock on the previous night. The constable also went to the accused's house about midnight, when he found him sitting on the doorstep. Accused said, "This is a terrible affair, I cannot rest." The constable said to him "When did you see Mrs. Sinnott last?" and the accused repeated his previous statement that he had not seen her since 8 o'clock on the previous night, and that he had not been near her place since. He also said he had been drinking with the deceased. There was also this fact: that at the fire the accused said to Finnie, a resident, "You old - -, it was you that set fire to it." It was an extraordinary accusation for the accused to make against Finnie. He evidently presupposed that the place had been set fire to, and he said, " It was you that set fire to it." Of course it was a question when the place was set on fire. There were many ways of delaying a fire for 10 or 15 minutes or even half an hour. They had read of such things being done. It was a matter for the jury to come to a conclusion about, after hearing the evidence, as to when the place was set on fire. But there was the evidence of one witness which he (Mr. Fraser) deemed it his duty to call attention to the evidence of the witness Hasler, a perfectly honest witness. Hasler said that when passing deceased's house he heard a voice which he took to be hers. She seemed to be agitated, wild, and excited, and he heard no other voice. His evidence was indistinct as to time, and unfortunately he did not verify by investigation any suspicious he might have had. He heard a voice which he took to be the deceased's. Of course here they were face to face with another view of the matter. At that precise moment, a few moments before the fire, he was not on the scene, and death would appear to have resulted quickly from the injury. So if the jury took Hasler's evidence as conclusive proof that about 8 o'clock he actually heard the deceased's voice, the suggestion at once would be-well, if she was alive then, how could it be said that she died by a wound inflicted by the accused? But the jury would have to take all the facts into consideration. Hasler said he heard a noise. Was it the woman's voice? Curiously enough, a small pet dog was burnt in the fire. If the dog saw the place afire and his mistress there, the whining of the dog might well be heard on the road. The cries of a dog in such circumstances were different altogether to his ordinary barking or yelping. The jury would hear Hasler's evidence for themselves and would draw their own conclusions. In regard to this and other matters they would hear the deductions of counsel and have the great assistance of hearing his Honor's comments. He (Mr. Fraser) had discharged his duty in trying to make the case plain to the jury, and he would now proceed with the evidence.

Dr Edward Eldridge Blomfield deposed that, in company with Dr Cuttan, of Outram, he examined the place where the body was found after the fire. From the position of the bones that were found he would conclude that the body was lying head towards the fireplace and the feet towards the bedroom. It was evident that the woman had been lying on her back. After detailing the description to the remains, which was similar to that given by the witness in the lower court, he stated that it was difficult to say how long a person would live after a wound in the heart such as had been inflicted on deceased; but he thought death would be rapid in this case. He had little doubt that the wound was inflicted before the fire and while the woman was alive. Nothing he saw would disprove the possibility of the fork being put in after the body was taken from the house, but it would have to be done very carefully and by a clean stab. Witness said he had since made experiments, which fortified him in the opinion he expressed that the wound was inflicted before death.

By Mr. Hanlon: Witness thought the fork was inserted between the second and third ribs. Roughly speaking, the space between the ribs would be about five-eighths of an inch. At the point where the injury was supposed to have been inflicted the upper portion of the heart would be about three quarters of an inch from the surface, and the apex would be about a quarter of an inch. He did not think the fact that the woman was full-breasted and wore stays would make a great deal of difference. The fact that the heart was transfixed would under ordinary circumstances make death almost instantaneous. There were no indications to show whether the burns were inflicted before or after death. He based his opinion that the wound was caused during life by the clean nature of the wound; that the surrounding tissues showed no evidence of having been torn; the oblique nature or the wound itself, and the condition of the fork itself. The wound might have been just as clean if the fork were thrust in, or if deceased had fallen on it while the body and the instrument were still warm. He did not think that opening the line of penetration would have afforded more information as to whether the wound was caused before or after death. Witness had not done so in this instance. If the heart was very much charred he did not think that any difference would be noticed in a wound made by a hot fork or a cold one. The experiments he made showed him that a fork embedded in the heart and then burned would show a line indicating how far it had penetrated. In the course of his experiments he found a fork that was used to transfix a heart and then burned showed very little carbonising had taken place on the part embedded. The fork produced in the court showed more carbonising than the ones he used. He could not say whether one would expect to find the same degree of difficulty in extracting the fork, whether it was put in before or after the burning. In making the post mortem he used the fork they had taken from the heart to make an experiment with the liver, and in doing so they found it required a pull to withdraw it. He did not think this would make any difference in the condition of the fork.

Re-examined: He did not think it was at all probable that deceased had rolled on to the fork.

Dr Cattan, of Outram, detailed the condition in which he found the body, and said indications led him to believe that the fork was inserted before death. He did not think it possible it could have been done in removing the body. After withdrawing the fork they thrust it into the liver two or three times. In his opinion instant death would be caused by such an injury as had been inflicted on deceased.

By Mr. Hanlon: It was unlikely, but not absolutely impossible, that the fork could have been lodged in the position it was by the body falling on it. The fact that it took a pull to extract the fork went to show, he thought, that the fork was thrust in before burning. When the fork was withdrawn it clearly showed the portion which had been embedded. The action of inserting the fork in the liver might after its condition a little, but it was not in the same condition now that it was at the coroner's inquest. It seemed to have got more rusty. He would not say from the appearance the prong now presented that it had been exposed to fire, but it had been subjected to great heat. The part exposed would probably be red hot, and the heat conducted along the part embedded. Witness cut down along the line of penetration, and found the mark along where the fork had run. The appearance of the flesh there was very little different from the rest of the heart. The line of penetration was not seared or discoloured, although he might reasonably have expected to find this if the fork were thrust in before death. At the point of contact the heart would be about half an inch from the surface of the skin. Witness looked to see if there was any wound made by the broken prong, and there was none, although it was touching the heart.

Jacob Switalla, examined by the Crown Prosecutor, detailed the events that took place in the house of the deceased on the evening preceding the night of the fire.

By Mr. Hanlin: On the night of the fire he was in the hotel till half-past 7. On leaving the hotel he went home past the chapel to his parents' house in Castleton Street. He was not quite sober when he went home. O'Donnell the hotel-keeper, went part of the way with him. His father and stepmother were at home when he arrived. He did not go to the fire. He did not hear about it until next morning. When he reached home he went to bed, and his father did not call his attention to the fire. He had spent most of the day in the hotel. He was not at Mrs. Sinnott's during the whole of Wednesday.

David Finnie, labourer, said that as he was going to church he saw the accused. On returning home he was standing at his door at a quarter to 8, and he saw the accused coming from Mrs. Sinnott's house. He knew it was a quarter to 8 because he looked at the clock at the time. Accused asked him if he had seen a little dog, and witness replied, "It was with you when I spoke to you earlier in the evening." Witness went to the fire, but he could not say how long afterwards it was that it broke out. At the fire the accused said to witness that he (Witness) had set fire to the house, and witness denied it.

By Mr. Hanlon: He did not look at the clock when the accused spoke to him. He heard the clock strike 8, and he judged that it was 15 minutes before that the accused spoke to him. He made a mistake in the lower court in saying that he got home at half-past 7.

In answer to further questions, Witness contradicted the last statement. He said he was on his way home form church at a quarter-past 7, and it would take him 10 or 15 minutes to get home. When the clock struck 8 he must have been standing at his door for longer than a quarter of an hour, and it must have been half-past 7 when the accused spoke to him.

Antoni Valenski, butcher, said he saw the accused in front of the deceased's house about 5 o'clock on the Wednesday night. He was asking Mrs. Sinnott to let him in, and witness saw him stagger to the door and go into the house. At the fire the accused asked someone to go for Constable Carmody.

Martha Valenski, wife of the previous witness, said it was 25 minutes to 7 when she left her home to go to her father's place on the Wednesday night, and she must have reached her father's place at 10 minutes to 7. On the way she saw the accused at Mrs. Sinnott's house. He was using bad language. Witness afterwards saw him enter the house.

Rosalia Kreft, residing at Allanton, said that on the Wednesday night she saw the accused trying to get into Mrs. Sinnott's house. He was speaking gently to her. Witness could not say the time. It was before candle light. After the fire the accused was in witness's house. Witness said she had not seen Mrs. Sinnott since the Monday, and the accused said he had not seen her since the previous night. Witness said: "Hugh, you did. I did not see you go into the house, but I saw you tapping on the window and the door." The accused said that witness was mistaken, as he was not at the house.

Joseph Kreft, labourer, residing at Allanton, said that on the Wednesday night he saw the accused at the window and the door of Mrs. Sinnott's house. After the fire the accused was in witness's house, and denied having been at Mrs. Sinnott's house.

John Smolenski, labourer, residing at Allanton, said that on the Wednesday night he saw the accused trying to get into Mrs. Sinnott's house. The time was about half-past 6.

Thomas Bryant, residing at Otakia, said he saw the accused at the hotel about half-past 7. He was looking for a dog. Witness left the hotel about 8 o'clock in company with a friend named Fleming. On passing Mrs. Sinnott's house he noticed a small burning, but took no further notice of it. When he had got along the road he looked back and saw a house on fire. He returned 20 minutes later, and the place was in a blaze.

By Mr. Hanlon: He did not see anyone carrying water to the fire.

Ellen O'Donnell, wife of the license of the Crescent Hotel, Allanton, said she saw the accused at the hotel on the Wednesday night between 7 o'clock and 8 o'clock. He gave her 10s to put on a horse. On the night before the fire accused got a bottle of whisky about 9 o'clock.

By Mr. Hanlon: Witness thought it was about a quarter to 8 when the accused came to the hotel. He was in search of a dog. He had a drink and went off. The accused was putting half a sovereign on witness's horse, which was to run at the Taieri races on the Monday.

Mr. Hanlon: That is the class of conversation he was having with you at that time?-Witness: Yes.

James O'Donnell, licensee of the hotel, was called by the Crown Prosecutor to be questioned by counsel for the defense.

In answer to Mr. Hanlon, witness said he saw the accused near Roxburgh's store on the night of the fire. He appeared to have been taking drink. Witness had been up the road with Switalla, and it was coming back that he met the accused, who was going in the direction of the Main road. As far as witness could gather, that would be about a quarter to 8.

Andrew Brocket, labourer, residing at Allanton, said that about half-past 7 o'clock on the night of the fire he was at Roxburgh's store, when the accused came along in search of a dog. He was under the influence of liquor. He made his way in the direction of the Main road. Later in the evening, about 8 o'clock, witness was going along the road, near Roxburgh's store, when he saw the accused coming after him. At Castleton street the accused overtook witness. Witness said to him, "Are you going to work to-morrow?" and the accused replied "No, it will be too wet." The time was then between 8 o'clock and half-past 8. Witness had looked at his watch on leaving Roxburgh's store. When witness and the accused reached the Main road they met witness's brother, who told them that Mrs. Sinnott's house was on fire. They ran to the fire. When the accused got up to the scene he said, "Oh my God!"

By Mr. Hanlon: The accused had two bottles of beer in his pocket at the time. He offered witness a drink, but witness would not take it.

Mr. Hanlon: Do you know where he was going?-Witness: I do not know.

Did he not tell you where he was going?-No.

Further cross-examined. Witness said that when he and the accused started to run to the fire the accused fell and cut his face.

Arthur Ede, labourer, residing at Allanton, said the accused came to his house about midnight on the night of the fire. he remarked that it was a sad affair about the fire. Witness asked him in, but accused would not come in. Witness said to accused that he should go home, but accused replied that he was frightened. Witness went to accused's hut with him, but accused would not go into it, but sat on the step.

John Currie, storekeeper, Allanton, said he got home with his cart at half-past 8 o'clock on the night of the fire. When he got home he looked at his watch at the door of his shop. It was at the same time he noticed that the deceased's house was on fire, and he called the attention of Mr. Hasler and Mr. Christie to the outbreak. When witness got to the house he noticed that the bedroom window was open about 4in or 5in. The door was open when witness reached the scene. After the flames had burnt out a bit witness saw some human remains lying in the ruins, covered by a sheet of iron, leaving only the head showing. Water was thrown on the charred remains. The body was lying face upwards. Witness procured a rake to pull the body out of the fire. Constable Carmody was present at the time. On his way home in his cart witness had seen the accused and a young fellow in Grey street, walking in the direction of the store. The accused was not sober. At the fire witness heard accused accuse Finnie of setting fire to the house. Finnie was an old resident of Allanton and a respectable man. The house had been burning , witness thought, a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes before he got to it.

By Mr. Hanlon: Witness did not see the body being drawn out of the fire; the crowd got in front of him, and he could not say whether it was rolled over and over.

At 5 o'clock the further hearing of the case was adjourned until half-past 10 o'clock next (Thursday) morning.

THURSDAY, JUNE 5.

Rosalie Kreft, recalled, identified two rings produced as rings commonly worn by Annie Sinnott.

Henry Hasler, baker, said that he lived in the next house to the deceased. The last time he saw her alive was on Monday, the 24th March. On the night of the 26th he was going to Currie's store, and passed deceased's house. He could not be sure of the time, but he thought it was about 8 o'clock. It was dark. As he passed he heard a voice which he took to be Mrs. Sinnott's. She seemed to be agitated, as if she were quarrelling with somebody or herself. He was positive it was a human voice, and he was positive it came from that house. He was alone, and did not stop to inquire. He met Christie on Currie's verandah. In about 20 minutes Currie came up and directed witness's attention to the fire, and witness made a bolt for the place. The window was partly open at the bottom and the door not locked. He tried to get in and was beaten. After getting a little way off he heard a dog whine inside. He was going for water. The previous night he heard a row at Mrs. Sinnott's. There was more than one voice, speaking pretty loudly.

By Mr. Hanlon: If Currie was right in saying that he reached the store at 8.30 it must have been after 8 that he heard the voice in the house. On the night of the fire he heard no other voice but the one. He knew Mrs. Sinnott very well, and believed it was her voice.

Thomas Christie, farmer at Allanton, said he saw the deceased the worse for liquor on the Tuesday night. On the following night he saw the accused in the township opposite the Athenaeum, at five minutes past 7 o'clock, walking in the direction of the railway station. At 10 minutes past 8 o'clock witness heard the accused speaking in the cutting below Roxburgh's. Witness was sure it was the accused's voice. Witness went along to Currie's store, and must have reached there about 17 or 18 minutes past 8 o'clock. Witness happened to look at his watch when he was passing the Catholic Chapel: it was 10 minutes past 8 o'clock then. Hasler arrived at Curries's about the same time as witness and 15 minutes later Currie came up and called attention to the fire. Witness and Hasler went to the fire. Witness tried the door, but it was locked. Hasler then tried the door, and witness put his foot against it, and it opened. There was no fire in the kitchen then, but the bedroom was on fire. It was not possible to get into the kitchen for smoke. After a while witness saw a body in the fire. The body was taken out of the fire by Constable Carmody, who got a rake and pulled it towards the back wall of the house and into a drain. Another pull with the rake took the body up the bank, nearly to the top, and the constable then missed his hold, and the body rolled down the bank into the drain. Another attempt was made to get the body up the bank, with the use of bags, and it was placed on top of the bank. When it was lying on the bank witness saw a fork in the body. It appeared to be sticking in the side of the body.

By Mr. Hanlon: Witness called Pitfield's attention to the fork. When the body was being pulled out of the house it was turned over once by the constable. That brought it close to the outer wall. A lot of debris had already been drawn out of the fire and put into the drain. When the body rolled from the top of the bank it took one or two turns before it reached the debris in the drain.

Mr. Hanlon: There was good light about the place, was there not?-Yes, very good.

Did you see the fork in the body when it was in the building?-No. Or when it was drawn up the bank the first time?-No. If there had been a fork there I was bound to see it, because the body was lying close in front of me for about 30 seconds.

In reply to further questions, the Witness said he had been for 15 years chairman of the Allanton Town Board.

Re-examined: water had been thrown on the body, causing a steam to rise form it, and the flames were fierce, but for all that witness could see the body well.

Constable Carmody deposed that he arrived at the fire about 9.30. A number of people were already there, and the body was pointed out to him. It was lying on its back in the kitchen. Roofing iron had fallen over it. Witness was handed a rake, but at first was unable to draw out the body for the heat and smoke. More water was thrown on the fire, and the body then drawn in to the bank. Pitfield assisted witness. The body did not roll over when being pulled out of the fire. When pulled about 2ft up the bank the body slipped and rolled back into the ditch, then filled with burning debris. Bags were then procured, and witness rolled some about one end of the body, and Pitfield rolled them round the other end. Christie then came to help them, half way down the bank. The body was handed to Christie and another man and laid on top of the bank. Witness then came on to the bank and removed the bags. Only the trunk of the body remained. Witness then saw a two pronged fork sticking in a black substance about the chest, which appeared to be the heart. He did not see the fork when putting on the bags-it could not have been noticed without a light. Someone struck a match, when witness saw the fork on the top to the bank. Witness both saw and heard accused, who appeared the worse of liquor-he drew attention to himself by coming and lifting up the bags, and appeared to be in a state of drunken grief. Witness went to the accused's hut about midnight, and found him sitting on the doorstep. In a conversation accused said he last saw the deceased alive about 8 o'clock the previous night. Later on accused said there was an old carving fork in the deceased's house. Witness handed the body over to Detective Cooney on the 8th in its original condition when found. He identified the fork produced as that found in the body.

By Mr. Hanlon: The body did not roll over when being drawn from the fire. He was certain of that. It was dragged on to the debris in the drain. He would not swear whether the body rolled or slipped down again to the debris. If the body had clay on the right side it need not have rolled over, but might have been twisted round in being dragged out.

Re-examined: The body, he thought, was not lying face down after it had slipped back to the drain. He could not say positively however.

Arthur Pitfield, blacksmith, who helped to draw the body out of the fire, said the body rolled over while it was being pulled out of the room. Later on it rolled down a bank at the back of the house. When it had been taken to the top of the bank witness saw the fork. He had not noticed it before. The light was good at the time.

Detective Cooney, who examined the debris of the fire, said he found some knives and forks lying close to the place in which the body was first noticed.

Dr Cattan, who was recalled on the suggestion of his Honor, was asked by the Crown Prosecutor: Assuming that wound to have been inflicted during life, could it have been self-inflicted?

Witness: Yes; it is possible.

Is it probable, judging by the appearances?- Yes, it could have been done quite easily by the woman herself.

Assuming it to have been done by her, would she have been in a condition to fire the premises afterwards?-No, she would not.

This closed the case for the Crown.

No evidence was called for the defense.

Mr. Hanlon, addressing the jury on behalf of the accused, said the question for the jury to decide naturally fell under two heads- firstly, was the deceased murdered, and secondly, if so, was the accused the murderer? The first question depended almost entirely upon whether the fork was thrust into the heart before death. Upon that point there was no direct evidence, but merely the opinions of the two doctors-opinions that, he submitted, were not worth very much. However, it was for the jury to say whether these opinions led them clearly to the conclusion that the wound was caused before death and before the fire. Dr Blomfield gave reasons. In the first place he said that the wound was a clean one; but in cross-examination he admitted that the wound might have been just as clean a one if made after death. And so with the doctor's other reasons. When asked whether the state of affairs that was found might not have existed if death took place before the wound, he said they would. The jury could not gather anything from the condition of the fork. The doctors said that on the long prong opposite the end of the broken prong there was a mark which they concluded showed the distance of penetration. Were they right in that? If the jury looked at the fork they would see that the doctors were not right. The mark did not give such an indication. How could it? The doctors took the fork and dabbed it into the liver three or four times. The fork ought to have been produced as it was found, so that the jury could have judged for themselves. The police had taken great care to keep the fork from contact with anything, even to the extent of wrapping it in cotton wool, so that no marks of carbonisation or anything else should be rubbed off, and yet all the time nobody seemed to know, until the fact came out by the merest accident, that the doctors had been experimenting with it. Dr Cattan gave four reasons for the opinion that the wound was inflicted before death. First, he spoke of the direction of the fork. But he had to admit that, although unlikely, it was possible that the body rolled over and fell upon the fork in such a way as to cause it to enter the heart. Then he said that the fork required a pull to withdraw it. Did it not occur to the jury that if a body were allowed to cool it would take the same pull to withdraw it as would be required if the fork were inserted before death? Dr Blomfield made experiments of that kind, and found as strong a pull required in one case as the other. Further, Dr Cattan said that he would have expected the fork upon being heated to scar and discoulour the heart on the line of penetration if put in before the fire, whereas he found the flesh on the line of penetration very little different to the rest of the heart. That seemed to negative the theory that the weapon was thrust into the heart before death. He (Mr. Hanlon) submitted with some confidence that when analysed the opinions of the doctors in support of the theory that the wound was inflicted before death were not worth a snap of the fingers. They proved anything or nothing. It would be the jury's duty to weigh the other evidence and see if there was any probability of the doctors being right, and he (Mr. Hanlon) thought, if that were done, the jury would find that the medical men did not negative the theory that the fork became embedded in the heart after death and by accident. Detective Cooney told them that he examined the ruins of deceased's house and found knives, forks and other things of the sort in the vicinity of where the body had been lying. He (Mr. Hanlon) put it to the jury as reasonable that as these things were found near the body, the dresser or table where they were kept was also standing near where the body was found, that they fell to the ground in the fire, and were drawn to the drain by the raking, that the fork was amongst the debris, and that when the body slipped down the bank it fell on to the fork. Neither Christie nor Pitfield saw the fork in the body when the body was in the fire or in the drain nor before it rolled down the bank. Constable Carmody, who seemed to have treated the prisoner particularly fairly, said that in his opinion the body did not turn over when in the house. But that did not matter much. The point was that it did turn over when rolling down the bank. If so, it was not unlikely that the fork then penetrated, and that would also explain the clay being found on the right side of the body. As to the question of whether the woman was murdered, he (Mr. Hanlon) would also put it to the jury that if she was murdered and the murderer took time to fire the house, was it reasonable to suppose that he would have left the weapon sticking in the body? Would he, if he had the thought to set the place on fire, go away and leave behind him the strongest and indeed the only evidence of the crime, for if there had been no weapon seen there would have been no murder trial? Then there was the unlikelihood of the fork having been used at all. A one-pronged fork was useless as a fork, since it would not steady the article to be cut, and such a fork would not probably be left lying about. It was more likely that it would be left in the drawer. A murderer would probably pick up something that was handy. And the jury would remember that Sweeney spoke with candour about the fork. He told the constable there was such a fork about the place. Upon these facts the jury must be driven to the conclusion that the woman was not murdered at all; that the fire was an ordinary accidental fire, in which this unfortunate creature lost her life. He would not take up the jury's time in discussing the theory of suicide. The second proposition which he (Mr. Hanlon) would put to the jury was that if the woman was murdered it was impossible-physically, absolutely impossible-that accused could have done it. Hasler heard a voice in the house which he believed to be the deceased's voice, and the jury could not but agree that it was her voice. She was the only woman living in the house, and nobody saw her leave it. Hasler was not quite right. If Christie and Currie were right as to their time, it would be at 8.15 that Hasler heard the voice, and it would be about that time that Mrs. Sinnott was injured by the fork if she was so injured, and death would be practically instantaneous, the heart being as if were nailed to the wall of the chest. Where was Sweeney at that time? Not at the deceased's house. Witnesses traced his movements from a few minutes past 7 o'clock up to 8.10. He was wandering about looking for a dog, and his movements were fully accounted for from a few minutes past 7 until his arrival at the fire. He could not have had time to go to deceased's house, quarrel with and kill her, and fire the house. These things could not be done in a minute or two. Yet Sweeney was seen by one or the other of the witnesses nearly every minute of the time mentioned, and always at some distance from Mrs. Sinnott's place. It could not be suggested that the dog burnt in the fire was Sweeney's-that he went there and left his dog,-because Finnie had possession of Sweeny's dog now. Somebody said that blood was on Sweeny's face at the fire, but that was accounted for, Brocket saying that accused fell and cut his face as he was running to the fire. Then as to motive. No motive was suggested, and there could be none. The only thing that could be suggested was jealousy, but in this case there was nobody to be jealous of. The parties had certainly quarrelled, but that was when they were in drink. It was not shown that in any of their quarrels accused had ever threatened the deceased or used violence towards her. The conduct of the accused was also that of an innocent man. He it was who urged that "the old girl" should be got out of the fire and that the police should be sent for-not likely suggestions if he knew that he had murdered her and left the evidence of the crime in her body. Accused certainly did tell a lie when he said that he had not been at the house on the night of the fire, probably because he did not want to be blamed for the fire. That lie might probably weigh against him if there were other circumstances connecting him pretty closely with the crime. But there was not one single circumstance that pointed to his guilt. For that reason he (Mr. Hanlon) would not discuss the alternative of manslaughter. There was nothing, he confidently submitted, connecting accused with the crime. In conclusion he asked the jury to weigh the evidence with the greatest possible care, consider the case with the gravest caution, and proceed to their finding not upon suspicion, but upon cogent and sound reasons, before taking the responsibility of consigning a fellow-being to the hangman's rope and a felon's grave.

After lunch his Honor summed up. He said that in this, as in all other cases, it was for the Crown to prove beyond any reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. The circumstances must be such as not only to be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but inconsistent with the death having happened in any other way than by the act of the accused. Learned counsel for the defense put the matter very fairly when he said there were two questions to be considered-firstly, was the fork inserted in the heart of the deceased during lifetime; and, secondly, if so, was the act done by the accused? In order to connect the accused the jury would have to be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt, in the first place, that the wound was inflicted during life, and in the second place, that it was the accused who inflicted it, and that there was no other reasonable hypothesis to show how it was inflicted. The question of whether the injury was inflicted during life depended on the medical evidence. This branch of the evidence was reviewed by his Honor, who also quoted from the evidence to show what was done with the body before the fork was discovered in it. There was, he said, this consideration: If the woman had been alive when the house caught fire there was nothing to prevent her from walking out of danger. Possibly, in answer to that suggestion, it might be said that the probability was that as she had been drinking for some days before she was overtaken by the fire when drunk. Unless the jury were satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the wound was inflicted during life the case was at an end, and the accused was entitled to be acquitted. If, however, they were satisfied that the fork was inserted in the body during life there could be no doubt that death would have been caused by the wound instantaneously. Then, in the second place, the jury had to satisfy themselves that the act was done by the accused, that it could not have occurred in any other way, and that it was not done by anybody else or by the deceased herself. The deceased had evidently had a considerable drinking bout. She was last seen by Kreft some time on the Wednesday morning, but the evidence of Hasler showed that she was alive much later in the day. Hasler's evidence was very important, because if he was right in saying he heard her voice at the time he said he heard it there was a great deal of evidence that showed that the accused was somewhere else at the time, and that between the time Hasler heard her voice and the time of the fire breaking out the accused was not near the scene of the fire at all. The Accused's movements were told by several witnesses, two of whom saw him go into the deceased's house about 10 minutes to 7. He, however, left the house later. He was at Finnie's house about 25 minutes past 7, but other witnesses saw him in the township some minutes earlier than that, and he went to the fire with Brocket. Hasler was very positive that it was Mrs. Sinnott's voice he heard in her house as he was passing it. If that was true, Mrs. Sinnott was alive about five or ten minutes past 8. Very soon after that the bicyclists passed and smelt the smoke, and at half-past 8 the place was seen to be on fire. Learned counsel for the accused had relied on the absence of motive or previous threats or violence by the accused to Mrs. Sinnott. All that was known was the trouble with Switalla on the previous night. Learned counsel had also properly called attention to the conduct of the accused after the fire, and to the fact that when Brocket last met him he had some beer in his pocket, as if he was going to Mrs. Sinnott's to drink it with her. In order to convict the accused of either murder or manslaughter the jury would have to be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt, in the first place, that the fork found in the woman's heart was stuck into the heart during her lifetime and caused her death. Unless the jury were satisfied of threat there was no case against the accused. If they were satisfied on that point they had further to consider whether the fork was stuck into the heart of the deceased by the accused and as to that they had to be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt before they could convict the accused.

The Jury retired at 3.12 p.m., and returned into court at 4.25 p.m. with a verdict of "Not guilty."

The accused was at once discharged.

His Honor, addressing the jury, said: I have to thank you, gentlemen, for the attention you have given to this case. I must say I concede in the verdict you have given. I think you have come to a right conclusion.

The court rose at 4.30 p.m.

Wednesday 4th June 1902

Rex v. Hugh Sweeny - Murder

The prisoner pleaded not guilty and was defended by Mr Hanlon. A jury of 12 was imparrelled and sworn. The following witnesses were sworn and examined on behalf of the crown.

Edward Eldridge Blomfield, Wm. James Cuttan, Jacob Switalla, David Finney, Martha Valenski, Rosalie Kreft, Joseph Kreft, John Curie, Thomas Bryant, Ellen O'Donell, Albert Brocket, Arthur Ede, John Smolenski.

The Court was adjourned till tomorrow at 10.30 am.

SUPREME COURT DUNEDIN

CRIMINAL SITTINGS

Wednesday, June 4.

(Before His Honor Mr. Justice Williams.)

His Honor took his seat on the bench at half-past 10 o'clock.

THE ALLANTON MURDER

Hugh Sweeney was arraigned on a charge of having murdered one Annie Sinnott at Allanton on the 26th March last.

The Accused, who was defended by Mr. A. C. Hanlon, pleaded "Not Guilty."

The following gentlemen composed the jury: Messrs Charles Dickinson (foreman), Herbert H. Scales, James B. Lockhead, James Manning, James Jack, James L. Bell, Alfred Baker, William Bennett, Harry A. Robinson, George Crosbie, Frederick Barton, and William T. Ranger.

All the witnesses in the case were ordered to leave the court.

The Crown Prosecutor (Mr. J. F. M. Fraser) opened the facts of the case at length. The accused was a single man, living at Allanton in a one-roomed cottage on the opposite side of the road from the cottage occupied by the deceased. The deceased was a widow, and the evidence would show that for many years past the lives of the two had been interwoven. They sometimes cohabited as man and wife. The deceased was in receipt of a pension of about Ł2 a month. The evidence showed that she was addicted to drink and of intemperate habits, and that about the period when the alleged murder took place both parties were drinking. The case was a very complicated one, and the evidence voluminous. He would outline the movements of the accused and those of the deceased about the time of the murder, and then point to the matters that cast suspicion on the accused. Having dealt very fully with the movements of the parties, learned counsel took up the next point in his address and referred to the circumstances that pointed to the guilt of the accused. There was the evident unwillingness of the accused to let the man into the house. Then it would be proved that after the fire the accused went to Mrs. Kreft's house. Mrs. Kreft said to him, "That is awful about Mrs. Sinnott." Accused replied that he had not seen her since the night that they were all drinking together-the night previous to the fire. Mrs. Kreft said, "Hugh, I saw you at the window and door to-night," and accused replied that he was not at the house and that he had not put his foot across the road. Mr. Kreft said he had also seen the accused at the house that night, and the accused said, "I was not." Mr. Kreft thereupon remarked, "Well, if it was not you it was your ghost." Constable Carmody, who got the body out of the fire, had a conversation with the accused subsequently. The accused told the constable that he had not seen the deceased since 8 o'clock on the previous night. The constable also went to the accused's house about midnight, when he found him sitting on the doorstep. Accused said, "This is a terrible affair, I cannot rest." The constable said to him "When did you see Mrs. Sinnott last?" and the accused repeated his previous statement that he had not seen her since 8 o'clock on the previous night, and that he had not been near her place since. He also said he had been drinking with the deceased. There was also this fact: that at the fire the accused said to Finnie, a resident, "You old - -, it was you that set fire to it." It was an extraordinary accusation for the accused to make against Finnie. He evidently presupposed that the place had been set fire to, and he said, " It was you that set fire to it." Of course it was a question when the place was set on fire. There were many ways of delaying a fire for 10 or 15 minutes or even half an hour. They had read of such things being done. It was a matter for the jury to come to a conclusion about, after hearing the evidence, as to when the place was set on fire. But there was the evidence of one witness which he (Mr. Fraser) deemed it his duty to call attention to the evidence of the witness Hasler, a perfectly honest witness. Hasler said that when passing deceased's house he heard a voice which he took to be hers. She seemed to be agitated, wild, and excited, and he heard no other voice. His evidence was indistinct as to time, and unfortunately he did not verify by investigation any suspicious he might have had. He heard a voice which he took to be the deceased's. Of course here they were face to face with another view of the matter. At that precise moment, a few moments before the fire, he was not on the scene, and death would appear to have resulted quickly from the injury. So if the jury took Hasler's evidence as conclusive proof that about 8 o'clock he actually heard the deceased's voice, the suggestion at once would be-well, if she was alive then, how could it be said that she died by a wound inflicted by the accused? But the jury would have to take all the facts into consideration. Hasler said he heard a noise. Was it the woman's voice? Curiously enough, a small pet dog was burnt in the fire. If the dog saw the place afire and his mistress there, the whining of the dog might well be heard on the road. The cries of a dog in such circumstances were different altogether to his ordinary barking or yelping. The jury would hear Hasler's evidence for themselves and would draw their own conclusions. In regard to this and other matters they would hear the deductions of counsel and have the great assistance of hearing his Honor's comments. He (Mr. Fraser) had discharged his duty in trying to make the case plain to the jury, and he would now proceed with the evidence.

Dr. Edward Eldridge Blomfield deposed that, in company with Dr Cuttan, of Outram, he examined the place where the body was found after the fire. From the position of the bones that were found he would conclude that the body was lying head towards the fireplace and the feet towards the bedroom. It was evident that the woman had been lying on her back. After detailing the description to the remains, which was similar to that given by the witness in the lower court, he stated that it was difficult to say how long a person would live after a wound in the heart such as had been inflicted on deceased; but he thought death would be rapid in this case. He had little doubt that the wound was inflicted before the fire and while the woman was alive. Nothing he saw would disprove the possibility of the fork being put in after the body was taken from the house, but it would have to be done very carefully and by a clean stab. Witness said he had since made experiments, which fortified him in the opinion he expressed that the wound was inflicted before death.

By Mr. Hanlon: Witness thought the fork was inserted between the second and third ribs. Roughly speaking, the space between the ribs would be about five-eighths of an inch. At the point where the injury was supposed to have been inflicted the upper portion of the heart would be about three quarters of an inch from the surface, and the apex would be about a quarter of an inch. He did not think the fact that the woman was full-breasted and wore stays would make a great deal of difference. The fact that the heart was transfixed would under ordinary circumstances make death almost instantaneous. There were no indications to show whether the burns were inflicted before or after death. He based his opinion that the wound was caused during life by the clean nature of the wound; that the surrounding tissues showed no evidence of having been torn; the oblique nature or the wound itself, and the condition of the fork itself. The wound might have been just as clean if the fork were thrust in, or if deceased had fallen on it while the body and the instrument were still warm. He did not think that opening the line of penetration would have afforded more information as to whether the wound was caused before or after death. Witness had not done so in this instance. If the heart was very much charred he did not think that any difference would be noticed in a wound made by a hot fork or a cold one. The experiments he made showed him that a fork embedded in the heart and then burned would show a line indicating how far it had penetrated. In the course of his experiments he found a fork that was used to transfix a heart and then burned showed very little carbonising had taken place on the part embedded. The fork produced in the court showed more carbonising than the ones he used. He could not say whether one would expect to find the same degree of difficulty in extracting the fork, whether it was put in before or after the burning. In making the post mortem he used the fork they had taken from the heart to make an experiment with the liver, and in doing so they found it required a pull to withdraw it. He did not think this would make any difference in the condition of the fork.

Re-examined: He did not think it was at all probable that deceased had rolled on to the fork.

Dr. Cattan, of Outram, detailed the condition in which he found the body, and said indications led him to believe that the fork was inserted before death. He did not think it possible it could have been done in removing the body. After withdrawing the fork they thrust it into the liver two or three times. In his opinion instant death would be caused by such an injury as had been inflicted on deceased.

By Mr. Hanlon: It was unlikely, but not absolutely impossible, that the fork could have been lodged in the position it was by the body falling on it. The fact that it took a pull to extract the fork went to show, he thought, that the fork was thrust in before burning. When the fork was withdrawn it clearly showed the portion which had been embedded. The action of inserting the fork in the liver might after its condition a little, but it was not in the same condition now that it was at the coroner's inquest. It seemed to have got more rusty. He would not say from the appearance the prong now presented that it had been exposed to fire, but it had been subjected to great heat. The part exposed would probably be red hot, and the heat conducted along the part embedded. Witness cut down along the line of penetration, and found the mark along where the fork had run. The appearance of the flesh there was very little different from the rest of the heart. The line of penetration was not seared or discoloured, although he might reasonably have expected to find this if the fork were thrust in before death. At the point of contact the heart would be about half an inch from the surface of the skin. Witness looked to see if there was any wound made by the broken prong, and there was none, although it was touching the heart.

Jacob Switalla, examined by the Crown Prosecutor, detailed the events that took place in the house of the deceased on the evening preceding the night of the fire.

By Mr. Hanlin: On the night of the fire he was in the hotel till half-past 7. On leaving the hotel he went home past the chapel to his parents' house in Castleton Street. He was not quite sober when he went home. O'Donnell the hotel-keeper, went part of the way with him. His father and stepmother were at home when he arrived. He did not go to the fire. He did not hear about it until next morning. When he reached home he went to bed, and his father did not call his attention to the fire. He had spent most of the day in the hotel. He was not at Mrs. Sinnott's during the whole of Wednesday.

David Finnie, labourer, said that as he was going to church he saw the accused. On returning home he was standing at his door at a quarter to 8, and he saw the accused coming from Mrs. Sinnott's house. He knew it was a quarter to 8 because he looked at the clock at the time. Accused asked him if he had seen a little dog, and witness replied, "It was with you when I spoke to you earlier in the evening." Witness went to the fire, but he could not say how long afterwards it was that it broke out. At the fire the accused said to witness that he (Witness) had set fire to the house, and witness denied it.

By Mr. Hanlon: He did not look at the clock when the accused spoke to him. He heard the clock strike 8, and he judged that it was 15 minutes before that the accused spoke to him. He made a mistake in the lower court in saying that he got home at half-past 7.

In answer to further questions, Witness contradicted the last statement. He said he was on his way home form church at a quarter-past 7, and it would take him 10 or 15 minutes to get home. When the clock struck 8 he must have been standing at his door for longer than a quarter of an hour, and it must have been half-past 7 when the accused spoke to him.

Antoni Valenski, butcher, said he saw the accused in front of the deceased's house about 5 o'clock on the Wednesday night. He was asking Mrs. Sinnott to let him in, and witness saw him stagger to the door and go into the house. At the fire the accused asked someone to go for Constable Carmody.

Martha Valenski, wife of the previous witness, said it was 25 minutes to 7 when she left her home to go to her father's place on the Wednesday night, and she must have reached her father's place at 10 minutes to 7. On the way she saw the accused at Mrs. Sinnott's house. He was using bad language. Witness afterwards saw him enter the house.

Rosalia Kreft, residing at Allanton, said that on the Wednesday night she saw the accused trying to get into Mrs. Sinnott's house. He was speaking gently to her. Witness could not say the time. It was before candle light. After the fire the accused was in witness's house. Witness said she had not seen Mrs. Sinnott since the Monday, and the accused said he had not seen her since the previous night. Witness said: "Hugh, you did. I did not see you go into the house, but I saw you tapping on the window and the door." The accused said that witness was mistaken, as he was not at the house.

Joseph Kreft, labourer, residing at Allanton, said that on the Wednesday night he saw the accused at the window and the door of Mrs. Sinnott's house. After the fire the accused was in witness's house, and denied having been at Mrs. Sinnott's house.

John Smolenski, labourer, residing at Allanton, said that on the Wednesday night he saw the accused trying to get into Mrs. Sinnott's house. The time was about half-past 6.

Thomas Bryant, residing at Otakia, said he saw the accused at the hotel about half-past 7. He was looking for a dog. Witness left the hotel about 8 o'clock in company with a friend named Fleming. On passing Mrs. Sinnott's house he noticed a small burning, but took no further notice of it. When he had got along the road he looked back and saw a house on fire. He returned 20 minutes later, and the place was in a blaze.

By Mr. Hanlon: He did not see anyone carrying water to the fire.

Ellen O'Donnell, wife of the license of the Crescent Hotel, Allanton, said she saw the accused at the hotel on the Wednesday night between 7 o'clock and 8 o'clock. He gave her 10s to put on a horse. On the night before the fire accused got a bottle of whisky about 9 o'clock.

By Mr. Hanlon: Witness thought it was about a quarter to 8 when the accused came to the hotel. He was in search of a dog. He had a drink and went off. The accused was putting half a sovereign on witness's horse, which was to run at the Taieri races on the Monday.

Mr. Hanlon: That is the class of conversation he was having with you at that time?-Witness: Yes.

James O'Donnell, licensee of the hotel, was called by the Crown Prosecutor to be questioned by counsel for the defense.

In answer to Mr. Hanlon, witness said he saw the accused near Roxburgh's store on the night of the fire. He appeared to have been taking drink. Witness had been up the road with Switalla, and it was coming back that he met the accused, who was going in the direction of the Main road. As far as witness could gather, that would be about a quarter to 8.

Andrew Brocket, labourer, residing at Allanton, said that about half-past 7 o'clock on the night of the fire he was at Roxburgh's store, when the accused came along in search of a dog. He was under the influence of liquor. He made his way in the direction of the Main road. Later in the evening, about 8 o'clock, witness was going along the road, near Roxburgh's store, when he saw the accused coming after him. At Castleton street the accused overtook witness. Witness said to him, "Are you going to work to-morrow?" and the accused replied "No, it will be too wet." The time was then between 8 o'clock and half-past 8. Witness had looked at his watch on leaving Roxburgh's store. When witness and the accused reached the Main road they met witness's brother, who told them that Mrs. Sinnott's house was on fire. They ran to the fire. When the accused got up to the scene he said, "Oh my God!"

By Mr. Hanlon: The accused had two bottles of beer in his pocket at the time. He offered witness a drink, but witness would not take it.

Mr. Hanlon: Do you know where he was going?-Witness: I do not know.

Did he not tell you where he was going?-No.

Further cross-examined. Witness said that when he and the accused started to run to the fire the accused fell and cut his face.

Arthur Ede, labourer, residing at Allanton, said the accused came to his house about midnight on the night of the fire. he remarked that it was a sad affair about the fire. Witness asked him in, but accused would not come in. Witness said to accused that he should go home, but accused replied that he was frightened. Witness went to accused's hut with him, but accused would not go into it, but sat on the step.

John Currie, storekeeper, Allanton, said he got home with his cart at half-past 8 o'clock on the night of the fire. When he got home he looked at his watch at the door of his shop. It was at the same time he noticed that the deceased's house was on fire, and he called the attention of Mr. Hasler and Mr. Christie to the outbreak. When witness got to the house he noticed that the bedroom window was open about 4in or 5in. The door was open when witness reached the scene. After the flames had burnt out a bit witness saw some human remains lying in the ruins, covered by a sheet of iron, leaving only the head showing. Water was thrown on the charred remains. The body was lying face upwards. Witness procured a rake to pull the body out of the fire. Constable Carmody was present at the time. On his way home in his cart witness had seen the accused and a young fellow in Grey street, walking in the direction of the store. The accused was not sober. At the fire witness heard accused accuse Finnie of setting fire to the house. Finnie was an old resident of Allanton and a respectable man. The house had been burning , witness thought, a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes before he got to it.

By Mr. Hanlon: Witness did not see the body being drawn out of the fire; the crowd got in front of him, and he could not say whether it was rolled over and over.

At 5 o'clock the further hearing of the case was adjourned until half-past 10 o'clock next (Thursday) morning.

THURSDAY, JUNE 5.

Rosalie Kreft, recalled, identified two rings produced as rings commonly worn by Annie Sinnott.

Henry Hasler, baker, said that he lived in the next house to the deceased. The last time he saw her alive was on Monday, the 24th March. On the night of the 26th he was going to Currie's store, and passed deceased's house. He could not be sure of the time, but he thought it was about 8 o'clock. It was dark. As he passed he heard a voice which he took to be Mrs. Sinnott's. She seemed to be agitated, as if she were quarrelling with somebody or herself. He was positive it was a human voice, and he was positive it came from that house. He was alone, and did not stop to inquire. He met Christie on Currie's verandah. In about 20 minutes Currie came up and directed witness's attention to the fire, and witness made a bolt for the place. The window was partly open at the bottom and the door not locked. He tried to get in and was beaten. After getting a little way off he heard a dog whine inside. He was going for water. The previous night he heard a row at Mrs. Sinnott's. There was more than one voice, speaking pretty loudly.

By Mr. Hanlon: If Currie was right in saying that he reached the store at 8.30 it must have been after 8 that he heard the voice in the house. On the night of the fire he heard no other voice but the one. He knew Mrs. Sinnott very well, and believed it was her voice.

Thomas Christie, farmer at Allanton, said he saw the deceased the worse for liquor on the Tuesday night. On the following night he saw the accused in the township opposite the Athenaeum, at five minutes past 7 o'clock, walking in the direction of the railway station. At 10 minutes past 8 o'clock witness heard the accused speaking in the cutting below Roxburgh's. Witness was sure it was the accused's voice. Witness went along to Currie's store, and must have reached there about 17 or 18 minutes past 8 o'clock. Witness happened to look at his watch when he was passing the Catholic Chapel: it was 10 minutes past 8 o'clock then. Hasler arrived at Curries's about the same time as witness and 15 minutes later Currie came up and called attention to the fire. Witness and Hasler went to the fire. Witness tried the door, but it was locked. Hasler then tried the door, and witness put his foot against it, and it opened. There was no fire in the kitchen then, but the bedroom was on fire. It was not possible to get into the kitchen for smoke. After a while witness saw a body in the fire. The body was taken out of the fire by Constable Carmody, who got a rake and pulled it towards the back wall of the house and into a drain. Another pull with the rake took the body up the bank, nearly to the top, and the constable then missed his hold, and the body rolled down the bank into the drain. Another attempt was made to get the body up the bank, with the use of bags, and it was placed on top of the bank. When it was lying on the bank witness saw a fork in the body. It appeared to be sticking in the side of the body.

By Mr. Hanlon: Witness called Pitfield's attention to the fork. When the body was being pulled out of the house it was turned over once by the constable. That brought it close to the outer wall. A lot of debris had already been drawn out of the fire and put into the drain. When the body rolled from the top of the bank it took one or two turns before it reached the debris in the drain.

Mr. Hanlon: There was good light about the place, was there not?-Yes, very good.

Did you see the fork in the body when it was in the building?-No.

Or when it was drawn up the bank the first time?-No. If there had been a fork there I was bound to see it, because the body was lying close in front of me for about 30 seconds.

In reply to further questions, the Witness said he had been for 15 years chairman of the Allanton Town Board.

Re-examined: water had been thrown on the body, causing a steam to rise form it, and the flames were fierce, but for all that witness could see the body well.

Constable Carmody deposed that he arrived at the fire about 9.30. A number of people were already there, and the body was pointed out to him. It was lying on its back in the kitchen. Roofing iron had fallen over it. Witness was handed a rake, but at first was unable to draw out the body for the heat and smoke. More water was thrown on the fire, and the body then drawn in to the bank. Pitfield assisted witness. The body did not roll over when being pulled out of the fire. When pulled about 2ft up the bank the body slipped and rolled back into the ditch, then filled with burning debris. Bags were then procured, and witness rolled some about one end of the body, and Pitfield rolled them round the other end. Christie then came to help them, half way down the bank. The body was handed to Christie and another man and laid on top of the bank. Witness then came on to the bank and removed the bags. Only the trunk of the body remained. Witness then saw a two pronged fork sticking in a black substance about the chest, which appeared to be the heart. He did not see the fork when putting on the bags-it could not have been noticed without a light. Someone struck a match, when witness saw the fork on the top to the bank. Witness both saw and heard accused, who appeared the worse of liquor-he drew attention to himself by coming and lifting up the bags, and appeared to be in a state of drunken grief. Witness went to the accused's hut about midnight, and found him sitting on the doorstep. In a conversation accused said he last saw the deceased alive about 8 o'clock the previous night. Later on accused said there was an old carving fork in the deceased's house. Witness handed the body over to Detective Cooney on the 8th in its original condition when found. He identified the fork produced as that found in the body.

By Mr. Hanlon: The body did not roll over when being drawn from the fire. He was certain of that. It was dragged on to the debris in the drain. He would not swear whether the body rolled or slipped down again to the debris. If the body had clay on the right side it need not have rolled over, but might have been twisted round in being dragged out.

Re-examined: The body, he thought, was not lying face down after it had slipped back to the drain. He could not say positively however.

Arthur Pitfield, blacksmith, who helped to draw the body out of the fire, said the body rolled over while it was being pulled out of the room. Later on it rolled down a bank at the back of the house. When it had been taken to the top of the bank witness saw the fork. He had not noticed it before. The light was good at the time.

Detective Cooney, who examined the debris of the fire, said he found some knives and forks lying close to the place in which the body was first noticed.

Dr Cattan, who was recalled on the suggestion of his Honor, was asked by the Crown Prosecutor: Assuming that wound to have been inflicted during life, could it have been self-inflicted?

Witness: Yes; it is possible.

Is it probable, judging by the appearances?- Yes, it could have been done quite easily by the woman herself.

Assuming it to have been done by her, would she have been in a condition to fire the premises afterwards?-No, she would not.

This closed the case for the Crown.

No evidence was called for the defense.

Mr. Hanlon, addressing the jury on behalf of the accused, said the question for the jury to decide naturally fell under two heads- firstly, was the deceased murdered, and secondly, if so, was the accused the murderer? The first question depended almost entirely upon whether the fork was thrust into the heart before death. Upon that point there was no direct evidence, but merely the opinions of the two doctors-opinions that, he submitted, were not worth very much. However, it was for the jury to say whether these opinions led them clearly to the conclusion that the wound was caused before death and before the fire. Dr Blomfield gave reasons. In the first place he said that the wound was a clean one; but in cross-examination he admitted that the wound might have been just as clean a one if made after death. And so with the doctor's other reasons. When asked whether the state of affairs that was found might not have existed if death took place before the wound, he said they would. The jury could not gather anything from the condition of the fork. The doctors said that on the long prong opposite the end of the broken prong there was a mark which they concluded showed the distance of penetration. Were they right in that? If the jury looked at the fork they would see that the doctors were not right. The mark did not give such an indication. How could it? The doctors took the fork and dabbed it into the liver three or four times. The fork ought to have been produced as it was found, so that the jury could have judged for themselves. The police had taken great care to keep the fork from contact with anything, even to the extent of wrapping it in cotton wool, so that no marks of carbonisation or anything else should be rubbed off, and yet all the time nobody seemed to know, until the fact came out by the merest accident, that the doctors had been experimenting with it. Dr Cattan gave four reasons for the opinion that the wound was inflicted before death. First, he spoke of the direction of the fork. But he had to admit that, although unlikely, it was possible that the body rolled over and fell upon the fork in such a way as to cause it to enter the heart. Then he said that the fork required a pull to withdraw it. Did it not occur to the jury that if a body were allowed to cool it would take the same pull to withdraw it as would be required if the fork were inserted before death? Dr Blomfield made experiments of that kind, and found as strong a pull required in one case as the other. Further, Dr Cattan said that he would have expected the fork upon being heated to scar and discoulour the heart on the line of penetration if put in before the fire, whereas he found the flesh on the line of penetration very little different to the rest of the heart. That seemed to negative the theory that the weapon was thrust into the heart before death. He (Mr. Hanlon) submitted with some confidence that when analysed the opinions of the doctors in support of the theory that the wound was inflicted before death were not worth a snap of the fingers. They proved anything or nothing. It would be the jury's duty to weigh the other evidence and see if there was any probability of the doctors being right, and he (Mr. Hanlon) thought, if that were done, the jury would find that the medical men did not negative the theory that the fork became embedded in the heart after death and by accident. Detective Cooney told them that he examined the ruins of deceased's house and found knives, forks and other things of the sort in the vicinity of where the body had been lying. He (Mr. Hanlon) put it to the jury as reasonable that as these things were found near the body, the dresser or table where they were kept was also standing near where the body was found, that they fell to the ground in the fire, and were drawn to the drain by the raking, that the fork was amongst the debris, and that when the body slipped down the bank it fell on to the fork. Neither Christie nor Pitfield saw the fork in the body when the body was in the fire or in the drain nor before it rolled down the bank. Constable Carmody, who seemed to have treated the prisoner particularly fairly, said that in his opinion the body did not turn over when in the house. But that did not matter much. The point was that it did turn over when rolling down the bank. If so, it was not unlikely that the fork then penetrated, and that would also explain the clay being found on the right side of the body. As to the question of whether the woman was murdered, he (Mr. Hanlon) would also put it to the jury that if she was murdered and the murderer took time to fire the house, was it reasonable to suppose that he would have left the weapon sticking in the body? Would he, if he had the thought to set the place on fire, go away and leave behind him the strongest and indeed the only evidence of the crime, for if there had been no weapon seen there would have been no murder trial? Then there was the unlikelihood of the fork having been used at all. A one-pronged fork was useless as a fork, since it would not steady the article to be cut, and such a fork would not probably be left lying about. It was more likely that it would be left in the drawer. A murderer would probably pick up something that was handy. And the jury would remember that Sweeney spoke with candour about the fork. He told the constable there was such a fork about the place. Upon these facts the jury must be driven to the conclusion that the woman was not murdered at all; that the fire was an ordinary accidental fire, in which this unfortunate creature lost her life. He would not take up the jury's time in discussing the theory of suicide. The second proposition which he (Mr. Hanlon) would put to the jury was that if the woman was murdered it was impossible-physically, absolutely impossible-that accused could have done it. Hasler heard a voice in the house which he believed to be the deceased's voice, and the jury could not but agree that it was her voice. She was the only woman living in the house, and nobody saw her leave it. Hasler was not quite right. If Christie and Currie were right as to their time, it would be at 8.15 that Hasler heard the voice, and it would be about that time that Mrs. Sinnott was injured by the fork if she was so injured, and death would be practically instantaneous, the heart being as if were nailed to the wall of the chest. Where was Sweeney at that time? Not at the deceased's house. Witnesses traced his movements from a few minutes past 7 o'clock up to 8.10. He was wandering about looking for a dog, and his movements were fully accounted for from a few minutes past 7 until his arrival at the fire. He could not have had time to go to deceased's house, quarrel with and kill her, and fire the house. These things could not be done in a minute or two. Yet Sweeney was seen by one or the other of the witnesses nearly every minute of the time mentioned, and always at some distance from Mrs. Sinnott's place. It could not be suggested that the dog burnt in the fire was Sweeney's-that he went there and left his dog,-because Finnie had possession of Sweeny's dog now. Somebody said that blood was on Sweeny's face at the fire, but that was accounted for, Brocket saying that accused fell and cut his face as he was running to the fire. Then as to motive. No motive was suggested, and there could be none. The only thing that could be suggested was jealousy, but in this case there was nobody to be jealous of. The parties had certainly quarrelled, but that was when they were in drink. It was not shown that in any of their quarrels accused had ever threatened the deceased or used violence towards her. The conduct of the accused was also that of an innocent man. He it was who urged that "the old girl" should be got out of the fire and that the police should be sent for-not likely suggestions if he knew that he had murdered her and left the evidence of the crime in her body. Accused certainly did tell a lie when he said that he had not been at the house on the night of the fire, probably because he did not want to be blamed for the fire. That lie might probably weigh against him if there were other circumstances connecting him pretty closely with the crime. But there was not one single circumstance that pointed to his guilt. For that reason he (Mr. Hanlon) would not discuss the alternative of manslaughter. There was nothing, he confidently submitted, connecting accused with the crime. In conclusion he asked the jury to weigh the evidence with the greatest possible care, consider the case with the gravest caution, and proceed to their finding not upon suspicion, but upon cogent and sound reasons, before taking the responsibility of consigning a fellow-being to the hangman's rope and a felon's grave.

After lunch his Honor summed up. He said that in this, as in all other cases, it was for the Crown to prove beyond any reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. The circumstances must be such as not only to be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but inconsistent with the death having happened in any other way than by the act of the accused. Learned counsel for the defense put the matter very fairly when he said there were two questions to be considered-firstly, was the fork inserted in the heart of the deceased during lifetime; and, secondly, if so, was the act done by the accused? In order to connect the accused the jury would have to be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt, in the first place, that the wound was inflicted during life, and in the second place, that it was the accused who inflicted it, and that there was no other reasonable hypothesis to show how it was inflicted. The question of whether the injury was inflicted during life depended on the medical evidence. This branch of the evidence was reviewed by his Honor, who also quoted from the evidence to show what was done with the body before the fork was discovered in it. There was, he said, this consideration: If the woman had been alive when the house caught fire there was nothing to prevent her from walking out of danger. Possibly, in answer to that suggestion, it might be said that the probability was that as she had been drinking for some days before she was overtaken by the fire when drunk. Unless the jury were satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the wound was inflicted during life the case was at an end, and the accused was entitled to be acquitted. If, however, they were satisfied that the fork was inserted in the body during life there could be no doubt that death would have been caused by the wound instantaneously. Then, in the second place, the jury had to satisfy themselves that the act was done by the accused, that it could not have occurred in any other way, and that it was not done by anybody else or by the deceased herself. The deceased had evidently had a considerable drinking bout. She was last seen by Kreft some time on the Wednesday morning, but the evidence of Hasler showed that she was alive much later in the day. Hasler's evidence was very important, because if he was right in saying he heard her voice at the time he said he heard it there was a great deal of evidence that showed that the accused was somewhere else at the time, and that between the time Hasler heard her voice and the time of the fire breaking out the accused was not near the scene of the fire at all. The Accused's movements were told by several witnesses, two of whom saw him go into the deceased's house about 10 minutes to 7. He, however, left the house later. He was at Finnie's house about 25 minutes past 7, but other witnesses saw him in the township some minutes earlier than that, and he went to the fire with Brocket. Hasler was very positive that it was Mrs. Sinnott's voice he heard in her house as he was passing it. If that was true, Mrs. Sinnott was alive about five or ten minutes past 8. Very soon after that the bicyclists passed and smelt the smoke, and at half-past 8 the place was seen to be on fire. Learned counsel for the accused had relied on the absence of motive or previous threats or violence by the accused to Mrs. Sinnott. All that was known was the trouble with Switalla on the previous night. Learned counsel had also properly called attention to the conduct of the accused after the fire, and to the fact that when Brocket last met him he had some beer in his pocket, as if he was going to Mrs. Sinnott's to drink it with her. In order to convict the accused of either murder or manslaughter the jury would have to be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt, in the first place, that the fork found in the woman's heart was stuck into the heart during her lifetime and caused her death. Unless the jury were satisfied of threat there was no case against the accused. If they were satisfied on that point they had further to consider whether the fork was stuck into the heart of the deceased by the accused and as to that they had to be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt before they could convict the accused.

The Jury retired at 3.12 p.m., and returned into court at 4.25 p.m. with a verdict of "Not guilty."

The accused was at once discharged.

His Honor, addressing the jury, said: I have to thank you, gentlemen, for the attention you have given to this case. I must say I concede in the verdict you have given. I think you have come to a right conclusion.

The court rose at 4.30 p.m.

%META:FILEATTACHMENT{name="Knife.JPG" attr="h" comment="A re-creatin of the fork found in Annie Sinnott" date="1090321065" path="Knife.JPG" size="14813" user="PaulKlemick" version="1.1"}% %META:FILEATTACHMENT{name="SinnottHouse.JPG" attr="h" comment="Remains of the Sinnott cottage after the fire" date="1090321192" path="Sinnott JPG" size="69026" user="PaulKlemick" version="1.1"}% %META:FILEATTACHMENT{name="SinnotInquest.JPG" attr="h" comment="Scene at the inquest on the body of Mrs Sinnott" date="1090321328" path="Sinnot JPG" size="41813" user="PaulKlemick" version="1.1"}%

%META:FILEATTACHMENT{name="Knife.JPG" attr="h" comment="A re-creatin of the fork found in Annie Sinnott" date="1105996059" path="Knife.JPG" size="14813" user="PaulKlemick" version="1.1"}% %META:FILEATTACHMENT{name="SinnottHouse.JPG" attr="h" comment="Remains of the Sinnott cottage after the fire" date="1105996155" path="Sinnott JPG" size="69026" user="PaulKlemick" version="1.1"}% %META:FILEATTACHMENT{name="SinnotInquest.JPG" attr="h" comment="Scene at the inquest on the body of Mrs Sinnott" date="1105996245" path="Sinnot JPG" size="41813" user="PaulKlemick" version="1.1"}%

%META:TOPICINFO{author="PaulKlemick" date="1090320840" format="1.0" version="1.1"}% %META:TOPICPARENT{name="CourtCases"}% -- PaulKlemick - 20 Jul 2004

SUPREME COURT

CRIMINAL SITTINGS
Monday, May 26.
(Before His Honor Mr. Justice Williams.)
His Honor took his seat on the bench at 10.30 am.
GRAND JURY

The following gentlemen constituted the Grand Jury:-J. H. Morrison (foreman), Alexander Begg, Alexander Black, Walter Bull, James Burrowes, F. A. Cutten, D. G. Davidson, J. Fotheringham, Walter Gow, P. F. Kahlenberg, J. Mann, P. Miller, G. H. Moodie, A. Palmer, J. L. Passmore, A. Paterson, R. S. Rankin, R. C. Skeet, W. Wills, R. Young.

HIS HONOR'S CHARGE

His Honor charged the Grand Jury in the following terms:-Mr. Foreman and Gentlemen of the Grand Jury,- The calendar this morning contains the names of 12 persons, who are charged with various offences. Most of the offences are of the kind which commonly come before the court on these occasions. There are several cases where certain employees of the Union Company are charged with stealing paint, oil, and stores of that description. There is a person charged with stealing a cow; there are two persons charged with theft from a till; there is a charge of false pretences; there is a charge of assault and robbery; there is a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm; and there is a charge of criminal assault upon a girl. As to all those cases I think you will find no real difficulty. The most important case on the calendar is one where the accused is charged with murder. The facts of the case are peculiar. I do not propose to go into the evidence in detail, but I will just give you a very short sketch of the salient features of the case. The deceased was a woman. She lived at the time of the occurrence by herself in a house at Allanton. She was last seen alive at Allanton by a witness, Joseph Kreft, between 10 and 11 in the morning of Wednesday, 26th March, and at that time she was not sober. That was when she was last seen alive, but a witness, Hasler, passing her house the same evening, about 8 o'clock, heard her voice in the house. He heard no other voice in the house, but he heard her voice. So we have this: that the last that is seen of her is at 11 o'clock on the morning of the 26th, and that the last that is heard of her is at 8 o'clock in the evening on the same day. About half-past 8-that is, about half an hour after she was last heard of - her house was seen to be on fire. The neighbours go and find when they arrive there that the house is in a blaze, that the bedroom window is partly open, and that the door is closed, but neither snibbed nor locked. They see her body lying on its back in the kitchen. Then the police and the neighbours try to get the body out, and they succeed after some difficulty owing to the heat. The body is brought out considerably burnt. Then when they have time and look at it, it is found there is a one-pronged fork sticking, firmly fixed, in the heart. This one-pronged fork belonged to the deceased. The medical evidence is to the effect that is probable that this fork was stuck into the heart during the lifetime of the deceased. If that was so, then, of course, it follows that the deceased was either murdered or else that she stuck it into herself. Then comes the question of what is the connection of the accused with the affair. It appears that the accused and the deceased had formerly lived together, but they had ceased to live together at this time. The accused lived in a hut not far from the deceased's house by himself. On the evening, however of the previous day-of Tuesday, 25th March-accused had been at the deceased's house with a man named Switalla. They had been drinking there, and there had been a quarrel between the accused, Switalla, and the deceased. The accused was apparently jealous of Switalla. So that the accused had been in the deceased's house certainly the night before. Then on Wednesday, 26th, the day on the evening of which the death happened, the accused was seen in the neighbourhood the worse for drink. Shortly before 7 in the evening he was seen to go to the house of the deceased and try to get in. Two of the witnesses say they saw him go into the deceased's house about 7. However, if he did go in, he came out again, because about half-past 7 he turned up at the hotel close by and was there for about half an hour. Then when the fire was observed he was seen going to the fire. The next day the accused was arrested, and he stated that he had not seen the deceased since the night of the 25th, and had not been near her place since that night. That is a short summary of the salient features of the case, gentlemen. I need hardly remind you that in this case as in all the cases your function is not to decide finally on the guilt or the innocence of the accused. What you have to determine is whether the evidence brought before you discloses a prima facie case which the accused should be called upon to answer. If it does you should find a true bill. It does not disclose a prima facie case the bill should be ignored. Gentlemen, if you will kindly retire to your room the bills will be laid before you...

"OTAGO WITNESS" - JUNE 04, 1902 (Pg 50).

SUPREME COURT

CRIMINAL SITTINGS
Wednesday, June 4.
(Before His Honor Mr. Justice Williams.)
His Honor took his seat on the bench at half-past 10 o'clock.

THE ALLANTON MURDER

Hugh Sweeney was arraigned on a charge of having murdered one Annie Sinnott at Allanton on the 26th March last.

The Accused, who was defended by Mr. A. C. Hanlon, pleaded "Not Guilty."

The following gentlemen composed the jury: Messrs Charles Dickinson (foreman), Herbert H. Scales, James B. Lockhead, James Manning, James Jack, James L. Bell, Alfred Baker, William Bennett, Harry A. Robinson, George Crosbie, Frederick Barton, and William T. Ranger.

All the witnesses in the case were ordered to leave the court.

The Crown Prosecutor (Mr. J. F. M. Fraser) opened the facts of the case at length. The accused was a single man, living at Allanton in a one-roomed cottage on the opposite side of the road from the cottage occupied by the deceased. The deceased was a widow, and the evidence would show that for many years past the lives of the two had been interwoven. They sometimes cohabited as man and wife. The deceased was in receipt of a pension of about Ł2 a month. The evidence showed that she was addicted to drink and of intemperate habits, and that about the period when the alleged murder took place both parties were drinking. The case was a very complicated one, and the evidence voluminous. He would outline the movements of the accused and those of the deceased about the time of the murder, and then point to the matters that cast suspicion on the accused. Having dealt very fully with the movements of the parties, learned counsel took up the next point in his address and referred to the circumstances that pointed to the guilt of the accused. There was the evident unwillingness of the accused to let the man into the house. Then it would be proved that after the fire the accused went to Mrs. Kreft's house. Mrs. Kreft said to him, "That is awful about Mrs. Sinnott." Accused replied that he had not seen her since the night that they were all drinking together-the night previous to the fire. Mrs. Kreft said, "Hugh, I saw you at the window and door to-night," and accused replied that he was not at the house and that he had not put his foot across the road. Mr. Kreft said he had also seen the accused at the house that night, and the accused said, "I was not." Mr. Kreft thereupon remarked, "Well, if it was not you it was your ghost." Constable Carmody, who got the body out of the fire, had a conversation with the accused subsequently. The accused told the constable that he had not seen the deceased since 8 o'clock on the previous night. The constable also went to the accused's house about midnight, when he found him sitting on the doorstep. Accused said, "This is a terrible affair, I cannot rest." The constable said to him "When did you see Mrs. Sinnott last?" and the accused repeated his previous statement that he had not seen her since 8 o'clock on the previous night, and that he had not been near her place since. He also said he had been drinking with the deceased. There was also this fact: that at the fire the accused said to Finnie, a resident, "You old - -, it was you that set fire to it." It was an extraordinary accusation for the accused to make against Finnie. He evidently presupposed that the place had been set fire to, and he said, " It was you that set fire to it." Of course it was a question when the place was set on fire. There were many ways of delaying a fire for 10 or 15 minutes or even half an hour. They had read of such things being done. It was a matter for the jury to come to a conclusion about, after hearing the evidence, as to when the place was set on fire. But there was the evidence of one witness which he (Mr. Fraser) deemed it his duty to call attention to the evidence of the witness Hasler, a perfectly honest witness. Hasler said that when passing deceased's house he heard a voice which he took to be hers. She seemed to be agitated, wild, and excited, and he heard no other voice. His evidence was indistinct as to time, and unfortunately he did not verify by investigation any suspicious he might have had. He heard a voice which he took to be the deceased's. Of course here they were face to face with another view of the matter. At that precise moment, a few moments before the fire, he was not on the scene, and death would appear to have resulted quickly from the injury. So if the jury took Hasler's evidence as conclusive proof that about 8 o'clock he actually heard the deceased's voice, the suggestion at once would be-well, if she was alive then, how could it be said that she died by a wound inflicted by the accused? But the jury would have to take all the facts into consideration. Hasler said he heard a noise. Was it the woman's voice? Curiously enough, a small pet dog was burnt in the fire. If the dog saw the place afire and his mistress there, the whining of the dog might well be heard on the road. The cries of a dog in such circumstances were different altogether to his ordinary barking or yelping. The jury would hear Hasler's evidence for themselves and would draw their own conclusions. In regard to this and other matters they would hear the deductions of counsel and have the great assistance of hearing his Honor's comments. He (Mr. Fraser) had discharged his duty in trying to make the case plain to the jury, and he would now proceed with the evidence.

Dr Edward Eldridge Blomfield deposed that, in company with Dr Cuttan, of Outram, he examined the place where the body was found after the fire. From the position of the bones that were found he would conclude that the body was lying head towards the fireplace and the feet towards the bedroom. It was evident that the woman had been lying on her back. After detailing the description to the remains, which was similar to that given by the witness in the lower court, he stated that it was difficult to say how long a person would live after a wound in the heart such as had been inflicted on deceased; but he thought death would be rapid in this case. He had little doubt that the wound was inflicted before the fire and while the woman was alive. Nothing he saw would disprove the possibility of the fork being put in after the body was taken from the house, but it would have to be done very carefully and by a clean stab. Witness said he had since made experiments, which fortified him in the opinion he expressed that the wound was inflicted before death.

By Mr. Hanlon: Witness thought the fork was inserted between the second and third ribs. Roughly speaking, the space between the ribs would be about five-eighths of an inch. At the point where the injury was supposed to have been inflicted the upper portion of the heart would be about three quarters of an inch from the surface, and the apex would be about a quarter of an inch. He did not think the fact that the woman was full-breasted and wore stays would make a great deal of difference. The fact that the heart was transfixed would under ordinary circumstances make death almost instantaneous. There were no indications to show whether the burns were inflicted before or after death. He based his opinion that the wound was caused during life by the clean nature of the wound; that the surrounding tissues showed no evidence of having been torn; the oblique nature or the wound itself, and the condition of the fork itself. The wound might have been just as clean if the fork were thrust in, or if deceased had fallen on it while the body and the instrument were still warm. He did not think that opening the line of penetration would have afforded more information as to whether the wound was caused before or after death. Witness had not done so in this instance. If the heart was very much charred he did not think that any difference would be noticed in a wound made by a hot fork or a cold one. The experiments he made showed him that a fork embedded in the heart and then burned would show a line indicating how far it had penetrated. In the course of his experiments he found a fork that was used to transfix a heart and then burned showed very little carbonising had taken place on the part embedded. The fork produced in the court showed more carbonising than the ones he used. He could not say whether one would expect to find the same degree of difficulty in extracting the fork, whether it was put in before or after the burning. In making the post mortem he used the fork they had taken from the heart to make an experiment with the liver, and in doing so they found it required a pull to withdraw it. He did not think this would make any difference in the condition of the fork.

Re-examined: He did not think it was at all probable that deceased had rolled on to the fork.

Dr Cattan, of Outram, detailed the condition in which he found the body, and said indications led him to believe that the fork was inserted before death. He did not think it possible it could have been done in removing the body. After withdrawing the fork they thrust it into the liver two or three times. In his opinion instant death would be caused by such an injury as had been inflicted on deceased.

By Mr. Hanlon: It was unlikely, but not absolutely impossible, that the fork could have been lodged in the position it was by the body falling on it. The fact that it took a pull to extract the fork went to show, he thought, that the fork was thrust in before burning. When the fork was withdrawn it clearly showed the portion which had been embedded. The action of inserting the fork in the liver might after its condition a little, but it was not in the same condition now that it was at the coroner's inquest. It seemed to have got more rusty. He would not say from the appearance the prong now presented that it had been exposed to fire, but it had been subjected to great heat. The part exposed would probably be red hot, and the heat conducted along the part embedded. Witness cut down along the line of penetration, and found the mark along where the fork had run. The appearance of the flesh there was very little different from the rest of the heart. The line of penetration was not seared or discoloured, although he might reasonably have expected to find this if the fork were thrust in before death. At the point of contact the heart would be about half an inch from the surface of the skin. Witness looked to see if there was any wound made by the broken prong, and there was none, although it was touching the heart.

Jacob Switalla, examined by the Crown Prosecutor, detailed the events that took place in the house of the deceased on the evening preceding the night of the fire.

By Mr. Hanlin: On the night of the fire he was in the hotel till half-past 7. On leaving the hotel he went home past the chapel to his parents' house in Castleton Street. He was not quite sober when he went home. O'Donnell the hotel-keeper, went part of the way with him. His father and stepmother were at home when he arrived. He did not go to the fire. He did not hear about it until next morning. When he reached home he went to bed, and his father did not call his attention to the fire. He had spent most of the day in the hotel. He was not at Mrs. Sinnott's during the whole of Wednesday.

David Finnie, labourer, said that as he was going to church he saw the accused. On returning home he was standing at his door at a quarter to 8, and he saw the accused coming from Mrs. Sinnott's house. He knew it was a quarter to 8 because he looked at the clock at the time. Accused asked him if he had seen a little dog, and witness replied, "It was with you when I spoke to you earlier in the evening." Witness went to the fire, but he could not say how long afterwards it was that it broke out. At the fire the accused said to witness that he (Witness) had set fire to the house, and witness denied it.

By Mr. Hanlon: He did not look at the clock when the accused spoke to him. He heard the clock strike 8, and he judged that it was 15 minutes before that the accused spoke to him. He made a mistake in the lower court in saying that he got home at half-past 7.

In answer to further questions, Witness contradicted the last statement. He said he was on his way home form church at a quarter-past 7, and it would take him 10 or 15 minutes to get home. When the clock struck 8 he must have been standing at his door for longer than a quarter of an hour, and it must have been half-past 7 when the accused spoke to him.

Antoni Valenski, butcher, said he saw the accused in front of the deceased's house about 5 o'clock on the Wednesday night. He was asking Mrs. Sinnott to let him in, and witness saw him stagger to the door and go into the house. At the fire the accused asked someone to go for Constable Carmody.

Martha Valenski, wife of the previous witness, said it was 25 minutes to 7 when she left her home to go to her father's place on the Wednesday night, and she must have reached her father's place at 10 minutes to 7. On the way she saw the accused at Mrs. Sinnott's house. He was using bad language. Witness afterwards saw him enter the house.

Rosalia Kreft, residing at Allanton, said that on the Wednesday night she saw the accused trying to get into Mrs. Sinnott's house. He was speaking gently to her. Witness could not say the time. It was before candle light. After the fire the accused was in witness's house. Witness said she had not seen Mrs. Sinnott since the Monday, and the accused said he had not seen her since the previous night. Witness said: "Hugh, you did. I did not see you go into the house, but I saw you tapping on the window and the door." The accused said that witness was mistaken, as he was not at the house.

Joseph Kreft, labourer, residing at Allanton, said that on the Wednesday night he saw the accused at the window and the door of Mrs. Sinnott's house. After the fire the accused was in witness's house, and denied having been at Mrs. Sinnott's house.

John Smolenski, labourer, residing at Allanton, said that on the Wednesday night he saw the accused trying to get into Mrs. Sinnott's house. The time was about half-past 6.

Thomas Bryant, residing at Otakia, said he saw the accused at the hotel about half-past 7. He was looking for a dog. Witness left the hotel about 8 o'clock in company with a friend named Fleming. On passing Mrs. Sinnott's house he noticed a small burning, but took no further notice of it. When he had got along the road he looked back and saw a house on fire. He returned 20 minutes later, and the place was in a blaze.

By Mr. Hanlon: He did not see anyone carrying water to the fire.

Ellen O'Donnell, wife of the license of the Crescent Hotel, Allanton, said she saw the accused at the hotel on the Wednesday night between 7 o'clock and 8 o'clock. He gave her 10s to put on a horse. On the night before the fire accused got a bottle of whisky about 9 o'clock.

By Mr. Hanlon: Witness thought it was about a quarter to 8 when the accused came to the hotel. He was in search of a dog. He had a drink and went off. The accused was putting half a sovereign on witness's horse, which was to run at the Taieri races on the Monday.

Mr. Hanlon: That is the class of conversation he was having with you at that time?-Witness: Yes.

James O'Donnell, licensee of the hotel, was called by the Crown Prosecutor to be questioned by counsel for the defense.

In answer to Mr. Hanlon, witness said he saw the accused near Roxburgh's store on the night of the fire. He appeared to have been taking drink. Witness had been up the road with Switalla, and it was coming back that he met the accused, who was going in the direction of the Main road. As far as witness could gather, that would be about a quarter to 8.

Andrew Brocket, labourer, residing at Allanton, said that about half-past 7 o'clock on the night of the fire he was at Roxburgh's store, when the accused came along in search of a dog. He was under the influence of liquor. He made his way in the direction of the Main road. Later in the evening, about 8 o'clock, witness was going along the road, near Roxburgh's store, when he saw the accused coming after him. At Castleton street the accused overtook witness. Witness said to him, "Are you going to work to-morrow?" and the accused replied "No, it will be too wet." The time was then between 8 o'clock and half-past 8. Witness had looked at his watch on leaving Roxburgh's store. When witness and the accused reached the Main road they met witness's brother, who told them that Mrs. Sinnott's house was on fire. They ran to the fire. When the accused got up to the scene he said, "Oh my God!"

By Mr. Hanlon: The accused had two bottles of beer in his pocket at the time. He offered witness a drink, but witness would not take it.

Mr. Hanlon: Do you know where he was going?-Witness: I do not know.

Did he not tell you where he was going?-No.

Further cross-examined. Witness said that when he and the accused started to run to the fire the accused fell and cut his face.

Arthur Ede, labourer, residing at Allanton, said the accused came to his house about midnight on the night of the fire. he remarked that it was a sad affair about the fire. Witness asked him in, but accused would not come in. Witness said to accused that he should go home, but accused replied that he was frightened. Witness went to accused's hut with him, but accused would not go into it, but sat on the step.

John Currie, storekeeper, Allanton, said he got home with his cart at half-past 8 o'clock on the night of the fire. When he got home he looked at his watch at the door of his shop. It was at the same time he noticed that the deceased's house was on fire, and he called the attention of Mr. Hasler and Mr. Christie to the outbreak. When witness got to the house he noticed that the bedroom window was open about 4in or 5in. The door was open when witness reached the scene. After the flames had burnt out a bit witness saw some human remains lying in the ruins, covered by a sheet of iron, leaving only the head showing. Water was thrown on the charred remains. The body was lying face upwards. Witness procured a rake to pull the body out of the fire. Constable Carmody was present at the time. On his way home in his cart witness had seen the accused and a young fellow in Grey street, walking in the direction of the store. The accused was not sober. At the fire witness heard accused accuse Finnie of setting fire to the house. Finnie was an old resident of Allanton and a respectable man. The house had been burning , witness thought, a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes before he got to it.

By Mr. Hanlon: Witness did not see the body being drawn out of the fire; the crowd got in front of him, and he could not say whether it was rolled over and over.

At 5 o'clock the further hearing of the case was adjourned until half-past 10 o'clock next (Thursday) morning.

THURSDAY, JUNE 5.

Rosalie Kreft, recalled, identified two rings produced as rings commonly worn by Annie Sinnott.

Henry Hasler, baker, said that he lived in the next house to the deceased. The last time he saw her alive was on Monday, the 24th March. On the night of the 26th he was going to Currie's store, and passed deceased's house. He could not be sure of the time, but he thought it was about 8 o'clock. It was dark. As he passed he heard a voice which he took to be Mrs. Sinnott's. She seemed to be agitated, as if she were quarrelling with somebody or herself. He was positive it was a human voice, and he was positive it came from that house. He was alone, and did not stop to inquire. He met Christie on Currie's verandah. In about 20 minutes Currie came up and directed witness's attention to the fire, and witness made a bolt for the place. The window was partly open at the bottom and the door not locked. He tried to get in and was beaten. After getting a little way off he heard a dog whine inside. He was going for water. The previous night he heard a row at Mrs. Sinnott's. There was more than one voice, speaking pretty loudly.

By Mr. Hanlon: If Currie was right in saying that he reached the store at 8.30 it must have been after 8 that he heard the voice in the house. On the night of the fire he heard no other voice but the one. He knew Mrs. Sinnott very well, and believed it was her voice.

Thomas Christie, farmer at Allanton, said he saw the deceased the worse for liquor on the Tuesday night. On the following night he saw the accused in the township opposite the Athenaeum, at five minutes past 7 o'clock, walking in the direction of the railway station. At 10 minutes past 8 o'clock witness heard the accused speaking in the cutting below Roxburgh's. Witness was sure it was the accused's voice. Witness went along to Currie's store, and must have reached there about 17 or 18 minutes past 8 o'clock. Witness happened to look at his watch when he was passing the Catholic Chapel: it was 10 minutes past 8 o'clock then. Hasler arrived at Curries's about the same time as witness and 15 minutes later Currie came up and called attention to the fire. Witness and Hasler went to the fire. Witness tried the door, but it was locked. Hasler then tried the door, and witness put his foot against it, and it opened. There was no fire in the kitchen then, but the bedroom was on fire. It was not possible to get into the kitchen for smoke. After a while witness saw a body in the fire. The body was taken out of the fire by Constable Carmody, who got a rake and pulled it towards the back wall of the house and into a drain. Another pull with the rake took the body up the bank, nearly to the top, and the constable then missed his hold, and the body rolled down the bank into the drain. Another attempt was made to get the body up the bank, with the use of bags, and it was placed on top of the bank. When it was lying on the bank witness saw a fork in the body. It appeared to be sticking in the side of the body.

By Mr. Hanlon: Witness called Pitfield's attention to the fork. When the body was being pulled out of the house it was turned over once by the constable. That brought it close to the outer wall. A lot of debris had already been drawn out of the fire and put into the drain. When the body rolled from the top of the bank it took one or two turns before it reached the debris in the drain.

Mr. Hanlon: There was good light about the place, was there not?-Yes, very good.

Did you see the fork in the body when it was in the building?-No. Or when it was drawn up the bank the first time?-No. If there had been a fork there I was bound to see it, because the body was lying close in front of me for about 30 seconds.

In reply to further questions, the Witness said he had been for 15 years chairman of the Allanton Town Board.

Re-examined: water had been thrown on the body, causing a steam to rise form it, and the flames were fierce, but for all that witness could see the body well.

Constable Carmody deposed that he arrived at the fire about 9.30. A number of people were already there, and the body was pointed out to him. It was lying on its back in the kitchen. Roofing iron had fallen over it. Witness was handed a rake, but at first was unable to draw out the body for the heat and smoke. More water was thrown on the fire, and the body then drawn in to the bank. Pitfield assisted witness. The body did not roll over when being pulled out of the fire. When pulled about 2ft up the bank the body slipped and rolled back into the ditch, then filled with burning debris. Bags were then procured, and witness rolled some about one end of the body, and Pitfield rolled them round the other end. Christie then came to help them, half way down the bank. The body was handed to Christie and another man and laid on top of the bank. Witness then came on to the bank and removed the bags. Only the trunk of the body remained. Witness then saw a two pronged fork sticking in a black substance about the chest, which appeared to be the heart. He did not see the fork when putting on the bags-it could not have been noticed without a light. Someone struck a match, when witness saw the fork on the top to the bank. Witness both saw and heard accused, who appeared the worse of liquor-he drew attention to himself by coming and lifting up the bags, and appeared to be in a state of drunken grief. Witness went to the accused's hut about midnight, and found him sitting on the doorstep. In a conversation accused said he last saw the deceased alive about 8 o'clock the previous night. Later on accused said there was an old carving fork in the deceased's house. Witness handed the body over to Detective Cooney on the 8th in its original condition when found.