32["The Broome Murder", The West Australian, Monday 13 November 1905, page 3]






In the Criminal Court on Saturday, before Mr. Justice Burnside and a jury, the hearing was concluded of the charge agains Charles Hagen, an Englishman, and Pablo Marquez and Simeon Espada, Manilamen, of having, on August 30, at Broome, wilfully murdered Mark Liebglid. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr. A. E. Barker) and the Assistant Crown Prosecutor (Mr. Wood) conducted the case for the prosecution. For the defence, Mr. R. S. Haynes, K.C., and Mr. A. S. Canning appeared for Hagen, Mr. W. M. Purkiss for Pablo Marquez, and Mr. C. Penny for Simeon Espada. His Honour, in summing up, said that the case on which the Crown rested in regard to Hagen was entirely presumptive. There was no direct evidence that Hagen had anything had anything to do with the murder. With regard to the other two accused, the case was on a different footing, for whilst Hagen had made no statement which implicated him both the others had made statements and had given the circumstances under which the crime was committed. They must, however, not apply either of the statements to other than the man who made it. The counsel for the prosecution had shown much moderation in unravelling an intricate case, and the counsel for the defence had displayed a great deal of energy and ability on behalf of their clients. After dealing with the evidence, his Honour said that he hoped that some day the Legislature would alter the law which allowed three men who were charged with a crime to be indicted together. Had the three accused been tried separaterly, a great deal of the difficulty which confronted the jury would have been obviated but, as the accused were being tried together, the jury should be careful not to allow themselves to be influenced in regard to the case of one man by the matter which had been brought to their ears in connection with the other men. In regard to Simeon, without his own statement there was no case to connect him with the murder, but, taking his own statement in conjunction with the other proved facts, the case assumed a different aspect.

His Honour's address occupied three hours and a half, and the jury retired to consider their verdict at twenty five minutes to 4 o'clock.

The jury returned to court at 8 o'clock, and asked his Honour if they could make any recommendation in regard to the accused.

His Honour: Do you mean in regard to mercy?

The Foreman: Yes.

His Honour: You can make any recommondation you please, but I can not answer for the result of it. I can only undertake to forward it to the tribunal constituted by the law to deal with such a recommendation.

The jury again retired.

On the application of each of the counsel for the accused, his Honour referred the point as to whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the accused.

At five minutes to 9 o'clock the jury returned a verdict of guilty of wilful murder against each of the accused.

The accused were then asked if they had anything to say why sentence of death should not be passed upon them. Hagen: No, nothing; but I am not guilty.

Pablo: I am not guilty.

Simeon: The other man did it.

His Honour: Charles Hagen, the jury have found you guilty of wilful murder. The law casts upon me the final duty of sentencing you. Marquez, you, too, have been found guilty of wilful murder. Simeon, the jury have also found you guilty of wilful murder. Mr. Crown Prosecutor, counsel representing the accused persons, have asked me to reserve for the consideration of the Full Court the question as to whether the evidence is sufficient to justify the jury in their finding. I attach to the sentence of death perhaps a graver importance than it may deserve, and I do not feel inclined to pass a sentence that I am not certain will be carried out. I will remand the prisoners in custody until the Full Court's decision is known.

The prisoners were then removed from the dock, and the Court adjourned to 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.