Page 34143876

• □alias□aliastranscriptline 28

  Michael Silberman only, without an alias.

• □alias□aliastranscriptline 83

  charge of stealing property as Silberman alias

Evidence continued
complained that his ankle was out; the ser-
geant said if plaintiff paid for a doctor he
could have him; the sergeant told me not to
allow anyone to see plaintiff without his
authority; on the previous evening I told
plaintiff he could see a doctor next day.
To his Honor: it is not usual to strip and
examine a man unless he has been convicted
before.
Dennis Walsh, constable, deposed: remem-
ber plaintiff being locked up and searched by
the lockup keeper, and corroborated part of the
evidence given by previous witness.
By His Honor: I brought over the effects
of plaintiff from the hotel myself; defendant
was with me; when we went to plaintiff's bed-
room we found the door locked, and the key on
the window; all the bags and the box were
locked; it was about 1 o'clock; brought the
portmanteau to the lockup first; defendant
remained in the bedroom with the other things
until I came back; I then went back and
brought over the Gladstone bag and the jewel-
lery box.
A. W. Hodgkinson, C.P.S. Bowen, deposed:
That plaintiff was charged in the name of
Michael Silberman only, without an alias.
This closed the case for the defence.
Mr. PETRIE then addressed teh jury on be-
half of [Sargeant?] Walsh in a masterly and plead-
ing manner.
Mr POWER addressed the jury very eloquently
and asked them to decide the case on the evi-
dence given, and not allow their minds to be
prejudiced by private and personal feeling.
The Sergeant had no doubt told deliberate false-
hoods. Mr. Power's address was a very able
and impressive one, and he concluded by say-
ing that it was the duty of the jury to give
plaintiff substantial damages.
His HONOR said that it was not necessary
to allude to the fact of plaintiff being a foreig-
ner. We are all Queenslanders, and justice in
this Court is meted out fairly and honourable to
all classes. The decision of the jury must
be given as to the weight of evidence and
not to the number of witnesses. His Honor
alluded to that part [o]f the case of the studs
and other matters pertaining to the plaintiff's
evidence as well as Barnett's. He said that
the jury would find defendant had failed
to plead justification for the arrest. He would
leave it to the jury to decide in their minds
whether he thought it possible that a young
man in the position of plaintiff would do such a
thing. They were told that the robber Scott
was an Englishman, could any reasonable man
confuse the description of the plaintiff with
Scott? unless anyone's eyes were closed it
should be impossible. There was not the
slightest proof that plaintiff was connected
with the Sydney pawn robbery, except the re-
marks of the defendant in the Police Court.
Ought any constable using due precaution, be
justified in arresting plaintiff ? Defendant never
for a moment hinted that plaintiff was an ac-
complice in the robbery. The searching of the
plaintiff was a most audacious piece of im-
pudence on the part of defedant. It was a
most gross piece of officiousness. Plaintiff
said he had no blankets, the defendant said
he had, certainly no one saw him in the cell
but the police. He was refused even the doc-
to[r] [t]o see him, which was evident cruelty.
De[fend]ant states that he received a telegram
after the case was deposed of, at about 1/2 past
10; the telegraph manager says it was de-
livered to defendant at 9 o'clock. This is per-
fectly clear that at 9 o'clock the sergeant knew
by that telegram that Silberman was not
Scott, yet he place plaintiff in the dock, on
charge of stealing property as Silberman alias
Scott. Did the defendant honestly believe that
on the 11th May that there was a reasonalbe
suspicion that plaintiff stole the jewellry?
Ought any reasonable man to have continued
that prosecution on the 11th of May? The jury
must consider all the facts in connection with
this case. His prosecuting plaintiff on that day
showed malice. A doubtful matter which
ought to have been cleared up by defendant was
the cause of the missing property. Defendant
was in charge of the jewellry, while plaintiff
was in goal. Then again the sergeant said
plaintiff only just looked into the bag to see if
his articles were all right, while constable
Walsh said plaintiff took at least ten minutes
on examination. The goods have gone and the
sergeant is reponsible. This case is very im-
portant in the interests of the public, and His
Honor impressed upon the minds of the jury
that they were to give special attention to the
facts of the case. If they came to the conslu-
sion that plaintiff had been unjustly treated
they must give the plaintiff substantial dam-
ges.
The jury retired at five minutes past 5 o'clock
and returned into court at five minutes to 10
with a verdict of guilty on all the counts.
They awarded £75 damages and £20 for loss of
watches and ring.
7.