THE CARROLL CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 208, 2 September 1899, Page 3

THE CARROLL CASE.

VERDICT OF MANSLAUGHTER.

PRISONER SENTENCED TO TEN

YEARS IMPRISONMENT

The Supreme Court was occupied until nearly five o'clock last evening in the grave charge of murder of his wife preferred against Wm. Carroll, lately licensee of the Masonic Hotel, Cambridge. Mr Theo. Cooper defended prisoner. When we went to press yesterday the case for the defence had just been entered on, the result of the trial appearing in a late country edition at five o'clock. We now conclude our full report of the case.

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR.

ROBERTS,

Mr Tole: What in your opinion was the cause of death?

Dr. Roberts: In my opinion the cause of death was stoppage of the respiration, due to congestion of the lungs, following pleurisy and meningitis, and was the result of injuries sustained.

Mr Tole: What was the cause of the meningitis?

Witness: I think the meningitis resulted from the contused wound near the left ear.

Mr Cooper: Do you think it was neglect of the wound that caused meningitis?

Witness: Meningitis would not be the natural consequence of such a wound, but it might have resulted from it at the same time.

Air Cooper: Do you think if she had had medical attendance from the first she would have recovered?

Witness: I think her chances of recovery would have been much better. None of the injuries were of themselves necessarily fatal.

Mr Cooper: Take the injury near the left ear. Might not that have been caused by deceased falling against something?

Witness: Certainly,

Mr Cooper: Might not some of the bruises have been caused by her falling down?

Witness: I think it probable they might. I think the bruise on the chest might especially have been caused by falling.

His Honor asked if the injuries were consistent with the evidence of the kicks and blows.

Witness: Possibly. I think the injuries to the chest would hardly be caused by a kick. The other injuries might have been. • •

This was the case for the Crown. THE DEFENCE.

Mr Cooper did not call witnesses for the defence. He addressed the jury and pointed out the great responsibility which rested on them in giving a verdict on a charge of murder. The final responsibility of finding a verdict which might cause death rested upon their verdict. When the life of a fellow-man was in jeopardy he always knew the jury exercised and pierced the evidence given with the greatest caution. Counsel paid a high tribute to Mr Tole for the fair and impartial way he had conducted the case, and he thought he had done justice to the country which he represents and the bar. This was another case, Mr Cooper pointed out, which was due to drink. The cursed drink traffic was at the bottom of these terrible crimes which came before the Criminal Court session after session. Mr Cooper reviewed the evidence, and contended that the case against prisoner was different to the ordinary murder case, in wanting to get some one out of the way for gain. There was no object in view and nothing to gain. The general weight of evidence against prisoner was that he had his boots off on the night of the assault. He submitted there was nothing in the evidence to justify them in committing prisoner for murder, and he referred to him wanting to get a medical man for his wife. According to the evidence prisoner treated his wife kindly fjom the 16 th May up to the time of her death. He submitted there was nothing in the evidence to justify a charge of murder, and nothing in prisoner's conduct to do so. He did submit the Crown had not proved the crime of murder.

HIS HONOE'S SUMMING UP,

At four o'clock His Honor commenced to sum up the whole case. He pointed out if the jury were not satisfied on the evidence that the crime of murder had been made out, they were entitled to bring in a verdict for manslaughter. It appeared to him that there was no escape from giving one verdict or the other. His Honor reviewed the evidence of the witnesses and commented on their statements. He said they had evidence of the prisoner's assault- in the smoking-room, at the foot of the stairs, and the continuance of the assault also upstairs. These assaults were distinctly sworn to by witnesses. The jury had also before them the fact that the woman never went downstairs after the assault; then she lost her speech, became unconscious and died. Dr. Eoberts stated that the woman's death resulted from the wound behind the ear. It was quite clear the.net of the prisoner caused the death of the deceased. As ably pointed out by the learned counsel for the defence, drink was at the bottom of the whole affair.

The jury retired to consider their verdict at 25 minutes past four, and "fifteen minutes later they returned to Court with a unanimous verdict against the prisoner of being guilty of manslaughter.

When Carroll was challenged, his counsel said he could only again urge that the prisoner would never have committed the offence but for the drink. His Honor, in passing sentence, said: Prisoner, you have been found guilty of a very frightful crime, having taken the life of your wife. It may be that drink has been the main cause of the troubles between you and your wife, and of this terrible ending to it, but drink can be no excuse for such brutal conduct as yours. It was terrible to listen, first to the evidence of the witnesses, who deposed as to your acts of cruelty and violence towards your wife, and next to the evidence which showed what were the results of those injuries. The jury have taken the most lenient view of the case they could. They would have been justified, in my opinion, as a matter of law, in convicting you of the crime of murder, but they have convicted you only of the minor offence of manslaughter, if it can be called a minor offence, when the result- is such as this, where a man persists in continuing assaults from room to room, beating and kicking his wife until the injuries resulted in her death. The sentence of the Court is that you be imprisoned in the Auckland prison, and kept to hard labour for the term of 10 years.