Murder of Chow Yat. Gisborne Times, 22 July 1922

MURDER OF CHOW YAT.^[1][]

MAGISTRATE RELEASES TOLDY.[]

LACK OF PRIMA FACIE CASE.[]

DRAMATIC END OF TRIAL.[]

WANGANUI. July 21.[]

The trial of Louis Toldy on a charge of the murder of the Chinaman Chow Yat came to a dramatic conclusion in the Magistrate’s Court to-day, Mr. Hollings, S.M., holding that the Crown had failed to make out a prima facie case and releasing the accused.

The most important of the witnesses was Detective Nuttall, who said that the clothes belonging to the accused were sent to the Government Bacteriologist, but the analysis failed to find on them any traces of human blood.

When asked to plead, accused said quietly, “I am not guilty”

Accused’s solicitor, Mr. W. J. Treadwell, said that he felt he would be lacking in his duty if he did not ask the Magistrate to take the responsibility of dismissing the information. He knew he was asking the Magistrate to accept no small responsibility and he knew of no other similar case in which the same request had been made. The Government Analyst’s report was decidedly in accused’s favor. It was palpable to everyone that if a jury on the evidence recorded a conviction they would be taking an extreme step. A mass of evidence had been called that the man was seen on May 30, and this evidence had been brought about solely by a statement of the accused to the police when he told them the story of what he was doing on the 31st. One would expect a guilty man to tell the police a story which they could not verify. Instead, he told them to the best of his belief his movements. All he had said was true down to the minutest instance, except that he had made a mistake in some of the events and said they had happened on the 30th instead of the 31st. If Toldy wanted to mislead the police, he would have told them false statements. The statements were those or a man who was conscious that the charges were utterly untenable and unfounded. If a man was to be convicted on the statements put forward during the case then he ventured to say the line of no man would be safe. There was nothing extraordinary about Toldy having been seen on the road or that he stopped suddenly and decided not to take the course he followed and took another course. Yet this was to be thrown up against him and that he wanted to avoid a man hours before the murder took place. Referring to the evening of the 31st, Mr. Treadwell asked the Magistrate whether he thought it possible that Toldy could have committed the murder and then acted in the careful, callous way which he did. The murder took place about 6 and Toldy was at the tram terminus at 6.40., calmly talking to the tramway officials and acting in a perfectly normal manner. He was again at the terminus at 9 p.m., talking again in the same unconcerned manner. There was not sufficient evidence to warrant Toldy being put on his trial. The police were to be commended for the way j they had done their duty, but all they had brought forward was some evidence that Toldy was seen on the road. Toldy had been in gaol for several weeks.

The Magistrate said that the evidence in the case was so helplessly weak that he did not think it possible for a jury to convict.

Mr. Marshall said that if the Magistrate said there was no case to answer his responsibility ended.

The Magistrate: The analyst’s report is against the prosecution. It had helped the prisoner.

Mr. Marshall said that the matter of the overcoat had not been satisfactorily explained. A number of witnesses had sworn that he was carrying another overcoat. The evidence also showed that the accused was avoiding recognition.

The Magistrate said that the witnesses so described the coat that it had become one of many colors. He asked Mr. Marshall whether the Grand Jury would find a true bill.

Mr. Marshall: I think they would.

The Magistrate: You would never get a conviction with the common jury.

The Magistrate also said that he felt his responsibility in the matter but would not shirk his duty.

Mr. Marshall said that it was not for him to press the matter unduly. However, he thought the Magistrate was accepting a grave responsibility if he dismissed the case.

The Magistrate said that he would I take five minutes to think the matter quietly over in his mind. He did not expect at this stage to he asked to dismiss the case.

On his return His Worship said that he had given the matter careful and anxious thought. He would be failing in his duty if he allowed it to go further on the present evidence, which did not establish a prima facie case. He was quite satisfied that no Grand Jury would return a true bill on the evidence, also that no common jury would be allowed to convict.

The big crowd in the Court received the decision with “Hear, hears." and hand-clapping.

In his Coronial capacity, the Magistrate returned a verdict that the death of Chow Yat was due to a bullet wound in the head inflicted by a person unknown. — P.A.