The case of Henry Jobes, charged with the murder of his wife in this city last June, which had been arranged to be called in the assize court this morning, has been delayed until Wednesday on account of the strenuous duty imposed on the jury in the Mack case, which occupied practically the whole of last week. At the close of the latter trial, Mr W Norman Bole KC, council for the Crown, asked Chief Justice Hunter to excuse the jury from further duty until Wednesday to permit them to attend to their private affairs, in view of the fact that they had been segregated for four days and that in all likelihood a number of them would be called upon to serve on the jury, which will try Jobes. His Lordship granted this permission.
Will Plead Insanity
It was thought that the trial would be considerably shortened and the case for the Crown strengthened by the fact, as announced in the British Columbian last week, that the Crown will call a witness to whom it is alleged Jobes confessed his guilt while incarcerated in the provincial jail here. However, indications now point to a lengthy legal battle between Crown Council and Mr J P Hampton Bole council for the prisoner, it being reported on good authority that the defence will rest on a plea of insanity, to prove with an imposing array of eminent alienists taking the stand.
It is anticipated that the defence will base its case to a considerable extent on the letters written by the prisoner to his wife immediately prior to the day on which she met her death by a bullet wound. In the last of these, taken from the corpse of the murdered woman and stained with her blood, Jobes protested his love for his wife in terms of intense emotion begging to be taken back to her home from which she had ordered him as the result of frequent quarrels between them. Jobes then took his baggage to the Guichon rooms, whence he addressed the letters in question.
One of the unusual features of the case is that, while the chief witnesses against Jobes are his two sons, he will be defended by Mr J P Hampton Bole, son of the Crown Council.
The defence claim that at the time of Henry's arrest “that his client had been hungry at the time and probably not in a condition of mind to understand the consequences of a possibly caution, to make a statement by the prospect of being fed".
When Officer Johnson went into the day room at the lock up, Jobes had said, “I am hungry”. To which the constable replied that he would get him something to eat.
Officer Johnson then cautioned him as to the result of making a statement, as Jobes made his confession unasked.
Chief Justice Hunter ruled that the evidence to be admissible in as much as there was no evidence that the prisoner had been questioned and he had in addition been cautioned, Constable Johnson having sworn that in his opinion the warning was uttered in such a manner as to convey it’s full significance to the prisoner’s mind.
Case For The Crown
Connecting up the chain of circumstantial evidence on which the case for the Crown is based, evidence was adduced at the afternoon sitting of the court intended to supply the links left out by the witnesses who testified in the morning.
Dr Kenny corroborated the evidence on Dr Walker in the matter of the wounds, but brought out no new points in this connection.
Harry Jobes, elder son of the accused spoke of the uncontrollable outbursts of temper to which his father was subject, but said that these were mainly experienced when the accused was under the influence of liquor. Only on one occasion that he could remember had he had a quarrel with his father when the latter was sober and on that occasion it appeared that Jobes had taken offence at a purely imaginary cause.
Mr Thomas Smally, a roomer at the Jobes house and a fellow worker in Schaakes Machine Works testified that on one occasion Jobes had told him that, “he would do for the whole bunch”. The witness replied that he would not permit Jobes to make threats of this nature without resenting them, whereupon the other had said, “I do not mean you, I mean my own bunch".
Another roomer, Mr George Webster, spoke of 25th May, when he said Mrs Jobes had called up to him from the kitchen that her husband was threatening to shoot her, later coming to his room and giving him an automatic pistol for safe keeping. The witness had reproached Jobes with his conduct that day when the prisoner said that he had not threatened his wife with a pistol but only a pipe.
Mr Isaac Johnson, employed with Jobes at Schaakes Machine Works said that on the afternoon of the day preceeding Mrs Jobes' death, the prisoner had told him that he had bought a gun and was going to have some fun with it.
Mr G A Speck hardware merchant, testified that between 12 and 1 o'clock of that day, a man whom he could not identify had bought a revolver of a pattern such as would be contained in a box produced in court, which was found in a valise identified as belonging to Jobes, picked up on Columbia Street on the day of the murder.
SUDDEN AND UNEXPECTED CONCLUSION OF THE EVIDENCE
The end of the trial came with unexpected suddenness. At the opening of the afternoon sitting the Crown called but one witness and then announced that the case for the Crown was closed.
Mr J P Hampton Bole council for the prisoner said that he would call no witnesses for the defence and claimed the right under section 944 of the code to address the jury after Crown Council, quoting precedent in support of his claim.
Mr W Norman Bole in reply quoted precedent to the contrary and contended that, provisions of the section in question were not entirely clear on the point.
Chief Justice Hunter however supported the contention that the council for the defence has the right, when he calls no witnesses to have the last word to the jury, providing however, that should Crown Council deem it necessary he may reply.
Crown Council then addressed the jury, rehearsing the evidence both circumstantial and direct, the latter being in the form of confessions of admissions of guilt. Submitting that there could be no doubt as to the fact that Jobes had committed the act, he passed to the consideration of the prisoners culpability which he claimed to be of the highest, in as much as the action was deliberate and after its commission, the prisoner had robbed the dead woman and used his utmost efforts to escape.
For the defence Mr J P Hampton Bole advanced the suggestion that the prisoner, if he were guilty of the offence had committed his act in the course of one of his uncontrollable fits of temper of which the witnesses had spoken. He recommended for the jury to exercise that quality of mercy, which in the words of Shakespeare 'is not strained but falleth like a gentle rain from Heaven'.
CHARGE TO THE JURY
In making his charge to the jury, Chief Justice Hunter summed up the case as is his custom in a manner which to a great extent cleared the air of much irrelevancy and relegated much immaterial evidence to the discard. Considering first the question as to whether or not Jobes had committed the act in question, he pointed out that the circumstantial evidence depended for its value on the absence of satisfactory statements of the facts adduced, the unexplained flight is strong presumptive evidence and as to the confession made by the prisoner, it was a principle in him to believe in admittance made against self interest.
Pointing to the question of the exact nature of the offence his Lordship emphasized the fact that insanity must be proven not merely hinted at by the defence and dwelt on the point that the robbing of the dead woman argued reasonable mind taking cognaisance of the necessary factors in a successful flight. The jury was absent only about half an hour and returned a verdict of wilful murder.
JOBES IS TO HANG
Wife Murderer Found Guilty Yesterday
After Half an Hours' Deliberation By Jury
After deliberating for about half an hour the jury, which held the fate of Henry Anderson Jobes in its hands, returned a verdict of guilty of murder against the machinist who was accused of shooting his wife to death in their home on the morning of June 3rd last.
Resting his head on his hands as if weary of the whole affair, Henry Anderson Jobes received the jury’s verdict finding him guilty of the murder of his wife and the pre-announcement of the death sentence by Chief Justice Hunter with the same absence of emotion which he had displayed practically throughout the trial. When Registrar Cambridge asked him in the form prescribed, if he had anything to say why sentence should not be pronounced on him, he shook his head and a scarcely audible, “No” escaped his lips.
Following the announcement of the sentence, Jobes was led back to the cells hanging his head and fixing his eyes on the ground, but walking with a firm step.