The Argus at KellyGang 18/3/1879 (5)
Walter Lynch's trial
This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr O'Leary intimated that he would call no evidence for the defence.
Mr Smith , in addressing the jury, said that by whomsoever the letter was written, there could be no doubt that it was sent to Mr Monk, because it was addressed to him, and passed through the post office in the ordinary way. If the jury would examine carefully the documents produced, they could not fail to come to the same conclusion the expert witnesses had arrived at, namely, that the writing was all the same, and that the threatening letter was consequently written by Lynch. With regard to the contents of the letter, it was clear that they formed a malicious threat to murder Monk, and the effect of the missive was to alarm Monk and his family. With the evidence before them, the jury could not help coming to the conclu sion that the prisoner was guilty.
Mr O'Leary, for the defence, pointed out to the jury that there was no quarrel between the prisoner and Monk, and that it was not even insinuated that the prisoner was in any way connected with the Kellys. There was, indeed, no motive supplied to explain why the prisoner should have written and sent the letter in question to Monk. The prisoner, who was a respectable farmer bringing up a large family, was being made a victim of the "Kelly scare." The only evidence against him was that he was seen in Mansfield on the day the letter was posted, but the only business that brought him there on that day was to settle about his land with the local land board, and the jury would surely not convict him of felony on such testimony.
HIS HONOUR, in summing up, said it was not necessary to the case to prove that the letter was sent with the intent of frightening Monk and his family. A more serious aspect of it was that it was probably sent to prevent Monk from doing what he had ex pressed his intention of doing, and for which he was peculiarly qualified, namely, assisting in tracking the murderers of the police. The mere writing of the letter with- out sending it would not constitute an offence, but if he wrote it, and was privy to the sending of it, then he would be guilty. If the letter was sent as a joke there would be no offence against the law, but it had never, apparently, occurred to the prisoner to even talk of the affair as a joke. No importance should be attached to the evidence that the prisoner said he had asked at the post-office for Monk's letter, nor to the fact that he was present when Monk said he could track the Kellys, for there were other 20 persons present, any of whom could have made use of the remark in the same way. The case appeared to hinge entirely upon the evidence as to the handwriting, which was undoubtedly very strong. A number of the prisoners' signatures had been proved, and one witness, who had frequently seen him write, had sworn that an account produced was in the prisoner's hand. The writing in these instances corresponded with that of the letter which formed the subject matter of this prosecution. If the letter was not the production of the prisoner, why did he not call witnesses to prove that it was not in his handwriting? He could easily have done so if he were innocent, for he had been dealing with many persons to whom his writing must have been familiar. The assertion that it was in his handwriting being uncontradicted would naturally be regarded as true. If that were the case, there could be no cavilling as to who sent the letter, or as to the motive of the sender. The jury, however, would give the prisoner the benefit of any reasonable doubt..
The jury retired for deliberation, and after an absence of an hour and a quarter, re- turned, and announced that they had found the prisoner guilty of writing the letter.
His HONOUR said he could not accept that verdict on the ground that it was imperfect, and sent the jury back to their room.
On returning again in a few minutes, the foreman said they found the prisoner guilty of writing and sending the letter, as the charge appeared in the first count.
The prisoner was then remanded for sentence
The Court adjourned until next day.
end
| ! | The text has been retyped from a microfiche copy of the original. We have taken care to reproduce this document but areas of the original text may been damaged. |
