1915-01-25ff

After all the testimony had been heard, it was time for summations to be made to the judge and jury, beginning with defense lawyer McBayne:

“In a clear, ringing voice, Mr. McBayne turned to the jury and commenced his plea for the life of the prisoner. He informed them that he would not weary them with going over all the evidence, believing and knowing that each had carefully listened to every word uttered.”¹

¹ “Three Day Murder Trial Ended”

Hamilton Times.      January 25, 1915.

Lawyer McBayne did not deny that his client had pulled the trigger of the revolver that had killed Gaetani Melano. However, there was more to the story, a story which had been tough to bring before the jury:

“He laid special stress on the difficulty a counsel had to contend with when witnesses were being cross-examined through an interpreter. How the story coming and going was often unintentionally changed, sometimes meaning more than it was possible to bring out; sometimes less. “¹

The lawyer tried to dispel the bad impression of the community in east end Hamilton :

“ ‘The story we have heard is not, I hope, a true story of the daily happenings in our Italian colony,’ said Mr. McBayne. ‘It opens on Sunday morning. Drinks are dispensed freely at unlicensed houses, to which men repair in gangs.’ ”²

² “Jury Was Out But a Short Time.”

Hamilton Spectator.    January 25, 1915.

McBayne put emphasis on the protracted argument:

“He laid special stress on the discussion over the flag and how, despite the Gherrissaying it had been settled, in reality it had not, ‘because the brother Galeo would not make up.’

“In speaking of the quarrel, he called attention to how it was well-known that a vendetta was often declared, that such a custom thrived in Italy. Family feuds were common and that ‘great hand shaking and much good evening’ were only disguises to cloak real feelings of hate. ‘There was no hand extended to Russini in friendship on that night. One thing predominated in the minds of the Gherri brothers – Russini must pay for his action.’

“When Russini said goodnight to the crowd, George Gheri immediately saw that his task of retribution would not be accomplished so he turned to the prisoner and ordered him to stop, and when George opened Russini’s bedroom door, Russini knew that only one thing was likely to happen.

“ ‘By the law of self-defense he was justified in shooting George Gheri, as leader of the Gheri vendetta. George had a gun in his pocket, and it was either Gheri’s life or Russini’s. It had been proven that two bullets were fired at Russini. Had they hit him as was intended, then Russini would not be here; he would be dead. Gentlemen, those men came there with suave words and a gun in their pocket, and Russini had to defend himself.

“ ‘You must consider that these people are not the same as us. You and I know what southern countries and their inhabitants are like. Through the veins of the people course rich, warm blood that rises to the boiling point at the slightest provocation. Words there do not lead to blows; the first thing they think of is to reach for a knife or some other instrument of death. We all know of how these feuds exist and how those not concerned gather round to see the blood fly – and we have an example in the affair on that Sunday night. The Gheri brothers were mad. Gailieo had a run-in with Russini earlier in the morning. John fought with him in the afternoon. George was chased out at the point of a revolver. They harbored intense hatred against Russini and declared a vendetta. The foreigners in that section knew that such had been declared; that the Gheris were going to ‘get Russini’ and a huge gang of them went to the Brant street boarding house to see the fight. They did not go inside, but stayed out, where none of the bullets would find a billet in their bodies.

“Gentlemen, I want to tell you. I want you to know that Russini fired that shot, not with malice aforethought, or with any intention of killing Melano – but in self-defense.

“Mr. McBayne then went on to score the Crown Attorney and the police department saying: ‘There is another important point I want to bring out. The trial was not one of the King against Russini, but a case of Gheri versus Russini. Directly after the shooting, a plan of the interior of the house was drawn up. That plan was prepared by a detective under the direction of the Gheri brothers. They, mind you, got all together, and pointed out the exact places that everyone stood who was in the dining-room on the night of the shooting. These men have been running the case, showing where and how everyone was placed. This has been proven, and who knows but they have influenced the witnesses who have told their story through an interpreter. Each story was identical in detail. I say and maintain that George Gheri, the leader of this vendetta, had set his mind on the prisoner paying the life penalty – just to satisfy his own revenge and the Crown has been assisting him.

“ ‘A great responsibility rests on your shoulders. A great responsibility rests on mine. I am defending this man’s life. There may be some questions I have not fully explained or something I should have left unsaid. I hope and trust that they may not be the means of sending this poor man to the gallows. I ask you to acquit Russini of the terrible charge that hangs over his head and hope that you will bring in a verdict of ‘Not Guilty.’

“Mr. McBrayne’s address was entirely extemporaneous, and a wave of approval swept over the court as he took his seat.”¹

Next was the turn of the Crown Attorney to address the court:

“ Mr. Davidson, though a little theatrical, gave a strong address, marshalling fact after fact. In no uncertain tones, he denied the allegations made by Mr. McBayne, holding him and his statements up to scorn, sarcastically referring to ‘George Gheri, leader of the vendetta.’

“ ‘Can you imaging,’ said he, ‘The Attorney-General sending a man down from another county if he thought  that man would be lead by three brothers named Gherri? Do you think for one moment that I , as a representative of the King in this province, would stoop to such a thing? No, gentlemen, the prisoner has been afforded every chance. Why, it is inconceivable that even such a thing should be suggested by my learned friend.

“ ‘It may fall on this court to pass the death sentence. Do you think that I, as representative of the Crown, could stand to think of a man being sent to his death because I had listened to three men? Do you think it could be done? No.’ ”¹

After some detailed reviewing of the evidence, the Crown Attorney completed his address by calling on the jury to find the defendant guilty of murder.

(To Be continued)