Comments (None yet)

Add New Comment

24 corrections, most recently by Bjenks - Show corrections

THE WATERLOO OUTRAGE.

TRIAL OF THE PRISONERS.

At the Central Criminal Court yesterday, before his Honor     Mr. Justice Windeyer, the trial of the prisoners concerned   in the Waterloo outrage continued. William Hill,     George Duffy, William Newman, Michael Donnellan, Thomas Oscroft, Joseph Martin, William Boyce, Hugh         Miller, Robert George Read, George Keegan and Michael Mangan were charged for that they did on the 9th of      

September at Waterloo, ravish and carnally know Mary   Jane Hicks against her consent.          

Mr. Teece, with him Mr. Pring, instructed by Mr. Wil-     liams, Crown Solicitor, appeared for the prosecution.      

Messrs. Elles and Scholes, instructed by Mr. Gannon, ap-      

peared for Oscroft, Martin, Miller Keegan and Newman

Mr. Gilson, instructed by Mr. Gannon appeared for Hill        

and Mangan; Mr. O'Mara, instructed by Mr. H. Levien,           for Read; Mr. Moriarrty, instructed by Mr. M. William- son (Williamson and Williamson), for Boyce; Mr. Cana-     way for Duffy, and Mr Edmund for Donnellan, both  

instructed by Mr Williamson.  

Mr. O'Mara continued to call evidence on behalf of the prisoner Read.  

Ann Fahey and Alice O'Brien gave evidence to the   effect that they saw the prisoner Read at different times on   the 9th September.

Henry Harrison deposed that on the day of the outrage he went to the Breadcarters' picnic with Reid, and was in his   company up to 2 o'clock.  

John M'Clinchy, bus-driver, gave corroborative evi-     dence.    

Richard O'Donnell also gave evidence.  

This concluded the evidence for the defence.  

Mr. Teece then called the complainant, who denied the allegations made against her by the witness Doran and   other witnesses were recalled by the Crown to give re- buttmg evidence.  

Mr Gibson proceeded to address the jury on behalf of       Hill and Mangan. He referred briefly to the character of     the charge which had been preferred against the prisoners.     He said the charge was one of rape under most extraordi-   ary circumstances and he thought such an extraordinary       case had never before come before a court of justice.     Very little circumstantial evidence had been given         in the case, but the evidence for the most part   had been direct evidence. He then reviewed the evidence     at great length, and contended that there had been a mis-      

take made with regard to the identification of Hill and     also that there was a great deal of conflict of statements on       the part of the Crown witnesses with regard to the move-    

ments and actions of the person whom they had taken to be         Hill. He contended that it had been clearly shown that Hill had taken no part in the outrage that had been committed. With regard to the prisoner Mangan,   he submitted that a substantial alibi had been proved by   respectable witnesses, including a number of men with whom he was employed on the day of the outrage.    

Mr. Elles, on behalf of the prisoner Newman applied to        

be allowed to call evidence in defence as the witness had not been in attendance at an earlier stage of the pro- ceedings.

His Honor granted the application.

John Newman, of Walker-street Redfern, stated that         the prisoner Newman was his grandson and that after       breakfast on the morning of the outrage the prisoner went   out for about 10 minutes, and afterwards went out to see   about some work, but returned before dinner, about half-         past 1 o'clock; the prisoner went out again at half-past 2,         and witness did not see him again until about tea time.      

Witness was severely cross-examined by Mr Teece, but      

adhered to his statement.    

James Henry, conductor of the Strawberry Hills omnibus     stated that he knew the prisoner well; the prisoner got on   the omnibus at the Bakers' picnic at Botany, and got off the     'bus at half-past 4 o'clock on the afternoon of the outrage    

near Christ Church.

Cross examined by Mr. Teece; He stated he had been convicted of duck stealing; had never spoken a word to the     witness Newman about this case.        

William Bogus, 17 years, stated he was at work at Rock-       dale on the day of the outrage and left work at 17 minutes past 4, reaching Sydney by tram at a quarter to 5 on the     afternoon of the date of the outrage; when he left the   Redfern station he went down George-street and saw the   prisoner Newman whom he knew at Christ Church, at 10   minutes to 5; they stopped and spoke for about three         minutes, and witness then went down George-street.      

Cross examined by Mr. Teece; witness stated he had    

known the witiness Newman about 12 months, but had  

never spoken to him about this case; witness had been      

fined at the Police Court for playing "bonanza;" witness               could not name anybody who had seen him at Rockdale on           that particular day; when he was served with the sub-      

poena, he told Constable Meyers that he had not seen the    

prisoner that day.  

His Honor said that he would require all the witnesses    

in this case to attend until until they were discharged.  

Constable Meyers, called by the Crown, stated that when   he served the subpoena upon Bogus he said he had been           working at Rockdale all the day and had not any op-       portunity of seeing, the prisoner Newman.  

Mr. Canaway, representing the prisoner Duffy, addressed       the jury for the defence. He contended that his client's           life was in danger by the evidence of one witness for the Crown but he asked them whether she was a credible         witness. He had brought evidence to show that     she was not. Her statement that she had been     forced into a cab was on the face of it most

improbable, and he traversed her evidence to show         how unlikely her story was, and in what points she had contradicted herself. He contended that her statements as       to the order of the assault differed, and that in one she had     omitted to name one of her alleged assailants. Moreover    

he maintained that she was a consenting party so far as his           client was concerned, and on these grounds he claimed an acquittal at their hands.  

Mr. Elles, addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoners   Newman, Oscroft, Martin, Miller and Keegan He did not intend to rest his defence upon any hypothesis as     his learned friend had done, but to rest it upon         the difficulty, almost impossibility, of identification by a   woman who had been assaulted by so many men.   He contended that the evidence respecting identification on   the part of the complainant was very unsatisfactory. He   pointed out that before the jury could convict they would   have to be satisfied that the prisoners either perpetrated the         offence or aided those by whom it was committed. The           case was one in which there must be no doubt or balancing of probabilities. He contended that it would be very dangerous for the jury to rely upon any evidence of identi-   fication given by the girl Hicks. He then went through the evidence and called attention to what he considered were discrepancies in the statements made by the witnesses        

for the Crown.    

Mr. Edmunds then addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner Donnellan. He said no one would dispute the fact that an outrage had been committed upon the complainant       Mary Jane Hicks, but it was for the jury to say which of        

the prisoners were concerned in it. He commented upon        

the different statements made by the girl, and asserted that  

she had made distinct statements, viz., the one before the   arrest of the prisoners, another to the Water Police Court    

and the third to the jury, and contended that she had made    

such dangerous discrepancies that the jury would not   be justified in accepting her testimony. He contended that  

she did not say a word about Donnellan until after she had

named seven or eight others. He referred to the evidence

given by the witnesses Smith and Brown and pointed out   that the witnesses had made different statements, and there-            

fore their evidence could not be relied upon. In conclusion,    

he called attention to the evidence which had been given on          

behalf of his client, and contended that a substantial alibi         had been made out on his behalf.      

Mr. Moriarty then addressed the jury on behalf of the      

prisoner Boyce. He pointed out that although a number  

of witnesses had mentioned Boyce's name, only one had      

sworn to his having assaulted the complainant and that               was the complainant herself. He contended that she was         in such an excited state when called upon to identify the prisoners thal her word could not be relied upon. He     submitted that they could not rely upon the evidence of the  

lad Colley, nor of two of the other witnesses, because they   declared they recognised some of the men at a distance of    

190 yards. The evidence of Smith, an intelligent witness,         who deposed to having seen the crime committed, went to             show that the prisoner Boyce was not one of the perpetrators.   A statement made by Duffy, one of the prisoners, had been      

read, but the jury must discard it altogether so far as it    

referred in any way whatever to any one of the other  

prisoners.    

Mr. O'Mara spoke at length in defence of the prisoner      

Read.

The Court was still sitting when we went to press. It is understood that his Honor will commence to sum up at 9     o'clock this morning.

Digitisation generously supported by
Vincent Fairfax Family Foundation
Digitisation generously supported by

Zoom

plus
thumb
minus
left
thumb
right
up
thumb
down