WAIKINO CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXXI, Issue 176, 26 July 1940, Page 3

WAIKINO CASE.

FINAL STAGE.

trial of a miner.

HONOR SUMS UP.

JURY CONSIDERS VERDICT.

'Ihe closing stage in th e trial of Douglas Herbert Cartman, miner, of Waihi, aged 22 years, on the cln.rge of the

minder of Mrs. Elizabeth Agnes Hamil- 1 ton at Waikino on April 2, was reached in the Supreme Court to-day, when Mr. 1 Justice Fair summed up in his address 1 to the jury. t After having warned the jurv against allowing themselves to be influenced either by what they had previously heard 1 or read of the case, or by any matter j of sympathy, his Honor, before proceeding to consider the evidence, also cautioned them against allowing their ( judgment to be deflected in any way by i the character of the distressing photo- , graphs produced in the case for the pur- J pose of clarifying the evidence. It was necessary, added his Honor, for > the Crown to establish every fact 1 essential to proving the charge of murder, ■ and il it tailed in any one fact the accused was entitled to the benefit of the 1 idoubt. '1 lie same rule applied in respect ; to tiic secondary charge of manslaughter, lie reminded tlie jurymen that they were i the sole judges on all matters of fact in connection with tlie evidence. Head Wounds. Homarking on the admission of Mr. llenry that there had been a car accident iu which accused's car was concerned, and Mrs. Hamilton a victim, Lis Honor said he thought the jury could accept that. Mr. Henry we.nt on to state that for the Crown to succeed it had to establish beyond the possibility of doubt that Mrs. Hamilton's death was due to blows from a tyre lever struck by the accused, and went on to say that it was also necessary to show that Mrs. Hamilton was alive, at the time she reached Butler's Hill in the car. Both statements seemed to his Honor to be correct, and he went on to deal with the evidence, on these points, drawing attention to medical evidence that one of the gashes on Mrs. Hamilton's forehead might have been inflicted by the axle, of the car, but that thu three could not have been done by the car. On the other hand, a tyre lever that could have inflicted the wounds was found beside the head, and was bloodstained. Dealing with criticism by Mr. Henry of Dr. Gilmour's evidence, his Honor said the jury had to consider the manner in which the evidence came out, and remarked that frequently, when hypothetical questions »ve.re put to witnesses, those witnesses appeared to contradict each other when in fact that did not do so. Dr. Uilmour's evidence «a< supported in the main points by the other two witnesses on the. question that the wounds on Mrs. Hamilton, or at lea-1 two of them, .were caused by the tyre lever. On all points relating to evidence of outrage, the medical witnesses were agreed. Crucial Point. Then the jury had to consider if it had been proved that Mrs. Hamilton whs living when the blows on the head were struck. The three, medical witnesses were agreed that she was alive at tVe time the blows were struck, and it seemed to him that the cross-examina.- , tion by counsel for the. defence had net ; shaken them on the point. 5 His Honor went through this evidence —which the Crown asked the jury to - accept as showing that Mrs. Hamilton s was alive at the time she was struck— the free bleeding as shown by the large s amount found on the soil under the ' head, and certain points about the tis--3 sues and the blood around the wounds on the head. Against that the prisoner's counsel stressed tho improbability of Mrs. Hamilton having survived the very - severe body wounds after having been s knocked down, put into the car and " carried some distance before falling out, and then again put into the car. oefore t" being driven four miles to Butler's Hill. Respecting the criticism by counsel ' for the defence that Dr. Gilmour showed bias, his Honor pointed out that a number of points which .were iu favour of accused were, mentioned, or agreed to by = Dr. Gilmour.

As to the possibility of the blow* being struck by anyone other than the accused, his Honor did not think the jury would have any difficulty in deciding that, when they had considered the circumstances, the admissions of Accused, and possible motive. Finally, his Honor instructed the jury on the legal requirements tor a vferdict of murder, that the person charged did what he did when he was in a° state of mind to know what he was doing. In this case the evidence showed that accused was aware of the nature of his acts. If the jury did not find accused guilty on the main charge they were entitled to bring in, if they thought the evidence justified it, a verdict of manslaughter by holding him guilty through negligent driving of the deaths of Mrs. fßimilton and of the bov Moran.

The jury retired shortly before noon to consider their verdict.