MOUAT PETITION.

Auckland Star, Volume LXI, Issue 146, 23 June 1930, Page 9

MOUAT PETITION.

NEW TRIAL REFUSED.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL DECISION

IDENTITY OF A WOMAN.

FAMOUS CASE RECALLED,

Tlie petition to the Executive Council }f Frederick Peter Mouat, of Christshurcli, at present serving a term of seventeen years' imprisonment in Mount Eden Gaol for manslaughter, for alternatively the quashing of his conviction, i pardon, or the reopening of the case, lias failed, according to the aelvice, received this morning by his solicitor, Mr. R. E. N. Matthews. Commenting on the decision of the Executive Council, as conveyed in a etter from Sir Thomas Sidey, Attorneyjteneral, and former Minister of Justice, Mr. Matthews stated that the matter yould not be dropped, as he hoped even:ually to establish Mouat's innocence. Sir Thomas Sidey said:-r (1) "I caused the representations nade in the petiti'on and the evidence in support of them to be gone into fully. I lave obtained reports from the Solicitorgeneral, the Crown Prosecutor at Cliristiliurch, and the Commissioner of Police. [ have also had the advantage of ascertaining the views of tlie judge who presided at the trial. As'a result of a careful consideration of the whole matter in conjunction with these reports, I regret that I was unable to recommend the Governor-General in Council to accede to the prayer of the petition. The matter jame before the Executive Council recently, and they decided not to make any such recommendation. • Gives His Reasons. (2) "It is not usual to state the reasons for such a refusal, but as you liave apparently given the matter very lareful consideration, and. have not been ible to discuss the . different questions raised with the counsel engaged for the prisoner at the trial or the Crown Prosecutor at Cliristcliurch, I think it proper to make an exception in the present case and to comment on some of the grounds put forward in support of-the implication. ~.. (3) "So far as the argument against the sufficiency of tlie evidence adduced at the trial, contained in Mrs. Mouat's affidavit, is concerned, it is to be noted that any insufficiency might have been made the subject of an application to the Court of Appeal for new trial under Section 446 Df the Crimes Act, 1908. The able and experienced counsel for the prisoner no loubt considered the making of sueli an application, and, after fully weighing the whole of the circumstances, decided not to make it. So far as the evidence adiuced is open to criticism, it was'very minutely and fully examined by the counsel for the accused at the trial. Amongst other things the difficulties in the >vay of disposing of the body by fire were fully stressed, and, therefore, the affidavit by Professor E. P. Worley breaks no new ground. (4) "As far as the evidence of Messrs. Holland and Hunter, as to their having seen Mrs. Mouat alive after the date of her alleged death, is concerned, the statements of these two witnesses were in the possession of the police and were made available to the counsel for the accused at the trial. He decided, however, that the evidence was worthless and did not desire them called. (5) "The identity of the woman who called at R. Hannah and Co. Ltd.'s shoj has been established. It was not Mrs Mouat. Mr. William's identification is quite unsatisfactory, and in any ease it is contradicted by that of anothei witness who saw the visitor. "Quite Incredible." (6) "Mrs. Prosser's evidence is quite incredible. She was fully aware of the important bearing on the case of the facts which she now discloses. She hac ample opportunity of stating then either to the Crown Prosecutor or te the counsel for, the accused, but gave no indication of them at the trial oi for a long time thereafter. Moreover during the trial she showed an evidenl bias in favour., of the accused, whicl would have led her to furnish this information if it had been in lier recollection then. Her daughter's evidence is apparently a mere reproduction oi her own. Moreover, the Crown Prosecu tor says: 'The statement of Mrs. Pros sfer that she merely answered questions is also absurd, because all the statements of the witnesses for the prosecution were taken or supervised by Detective-Sergeant Gibson, one of the most honest and competent members oi the detective force in the country. I am quite certain that any facts elicited by Detective-Sergeant Gibson in favour oi the accused would have been embodied in the statements of the witnesses.' Identification Question. (7) "Mrs. Bown has been interviewed by the police, who state that she is weak mentally and is a quite unreliable witness. Mrs. Wilson, at whose house Mrs. Bown is supposed to have seen the late Mrs. Mouat after her death, denies that Mrs: Mouat was there, and gives the name. of the person who came in while Mrs. Bown was at her house. The evidence of Mrs. Harrison and Miss Andrews is not of value. The incident is supposed to have happened while the trial was in progress. If they had any confidence in their own identification they would have made a statement at the time. Their own statements seem to show that they are quite uncertain is to who the person was. (8) "Mr. Warlow' f s evidence as to the finding of otlier human bones in the vicinity is so vague as to be worthless, [t is true that a skull and. some fossil bones were found in the vicinity, but these matters were before the jury at the trial. (9) "I do not desire you to have the impression that I have purported to cover all. the arguments adduced by you or your client, or all the facts ibout which there may be some controversy. I desire in this letter to deal only with the main contentions put forward by you. I have, however, carefully considered the whole of the relevant facts and have obtained most comprehensive reports In relation to them. In the result I have come to the definite opinion that no sufficient grounds have been shown for taking such action as is aSked in the petition."