THE DEFENCE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 142, 18 June 1934, Page 8

THE DEFENCE.

COURT CROWDED. MR. NDRTHCROFT'S ADDRESS. DUTY OP THE JURY. The Court was crowded when Mr. Nortl.croft commenced his address to the jury at IS minutes past 2. Mrs. Bayly occupied a seat next to Mr. Lcary. "May it please your Honor, Mr. Foreman and gentlemen of the jury," commenced Mr. Northcroft, "we have now reached the stage in an extraordinarily Ion" and grave trial when it is my duty as in fact it is my privilege to present to.you the defence for the accused, William. Alfred Bayly. "Before I come to the detailed discussion of the case I am bound to refer to the extraordinary length of time which has been taken and to comment upon the strain that has been upon all of us. If I may say so, particularly on counsel for the defence rather than upon counsel for the prosecution; because counsel for the m-osocution has been preparing lor weeks and months. The defence, on the other hand, has had to examine the evidence as it came, and cross-examine the witnesses and collect the materials comino- from that cross-examination. Mr ° Northcroft said he had been fortunate in having for his assistant Mi. Leary, who had been of very great aid He was afraid he must ask the jury to bear with him if he dealt at verv considerable length with all the details. He knew the jury had been more than usually attentive; in fact, it had never been his privilege before to appear before a jury that had been socareful and painstaking. This fact made him reluctant in having to present the case to them at length. Counsel said he realised that jurymen had suffered exactions in the trial which had not fallen to counsel, for the reason that counsel had been able to maintain their normal life, while the jury had been locked away. That fact made it diflicult for them to bring to bear upon the case those reasoning faculties that no doubt they would have been able to applv under happier circumstances. The case" had been presented by the Crown with elaborate details—lie would even surest that there had been an overelaboration—and that had placed counsel for the defence in a difficult position, in that they were almost constrained to deal with every matter that had been brought forward, even though it might appear to be unimportant, because the jury might fcold a contrary view. From the outset he invited the jury to consider the true functions of the principal actors in the drama.

The Jury's Part. Counsel for the Crown had presented the liiatej-inl to show the accused person was in fact guilty of the crime of which ho was charged, while it was the duty of counsel for the defence to examine that case critically and in cross-examina-tion. It was the duty of the judge to direct the jury on matters of law. Mr. Meredith, no doubt unintentionally, had made an overstatement on the position of the judge in that the judge was to make a direction generally. "The decisions are yours," said Mr. Northcroft, "on all matters of fact." The function of the judge was to direct on matters of law and no doubt his Honor would indicate and point out what the more important part of the evidence was, but whatever view lie held it was no concern of the jury. The concern of the jury was the opinion which they themselves formed. Mr. Northcroft explained to the jury the various forms of murder under tho criminal code. "Unless you are satisfled thai the circumstances as revealed here are within the headings which I have enumerated," he said, "there is no murder, even though you may consider the killing is blameworthy, because the killing then descends to manslaughter, and murder has not been committed." (Proceeding.)