NEW TRIAL MAY BE SOUGHT

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21727, 9 March 1936, Page 19

NEW TRIAL MAY BE SOUGHT

. ♦ JUDGMENT GIVEN FOR maheo JURY’S INFERENCES FROM EVIDENCE (PBIBS ASSOCIATIOH TSLIOBAM.' ' AUCKLAND, March 7. Leave to apply to the Court of Appeal fpr a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was against the weight of evidence was granted by Mr Justice Fair in the Supreme Court to-day, to Eric Marep, who was sentenced' to death for .wife murder. The principles upon which the application were to be determined were that it should be-shown that it might be reasonably argued, not necessarily successfully, that the verdict was against the weight of evidence, said his Honour, m reading his written judgment in court. Argument deserving of consideration must be adduced to the effect that the evidence of some essential facts was such that the jury should not have accepted it as sufficient proof. For him to grant leave, said his Honour, it was necessary that he should be of opinion that the contentions would, or might be, successful. The judge quoted authorities dealing with similar cases, notably Rex v. Bruges, Rex v. Yujnovich, Rex v. Styche, and Rex v. Tarrant. In the present case, said his Honour, a .? r , own . s c&se rested on circumstantial evidence and the Crown was required ;to exclude any reasonable hypothesis which might account for the death of Mrs Mareo other than that it whs caused by veronal administered ’ the accused with the Intention of causing it. Counsel for the prisoner had contended that it- was reasonably arguable that there were essential facts of the Crown s case which, upon careful examination, no reasonable man would have considered proved, to the extent amounting to moral certainty in compliance with the higher degree of assurance required in similar cases. Many matters were referred to by counsfel, but his Honour thought it preto set them out in detail. The Crown submitted that all the evidence questioned plight properly have been accepted in proof of the charge arid to the exclusion of the suicide and misadventure, whether considered independently or in conjunction with other evidence. The Crown also said that, apart altogether from, the facts, proof of which, wai questioned, the verdict was sound, and that it was not reasonably arguable. Circumstantial evidence was called for the determination of facts by inferences from other sets of facts and must be such, as to be not only consistent with guilt, but inconsistent with any other rational hypothesis. In view of the difficulty of saying that an inference sought to be drawn was the only one possible oh the facts upon which it Was founded, and in view of the scope for difference of opinion as to the weight to be attached to the facts deposed to ih relation to the inferences required to be drawn, his Honour did not think he could say there was not reasonably arguable ground upon which it might be contended that the verdict was such as a jury could not reasonably have found. He was not disposed to prevent the prisoner from submitting his motion to the Court of Appeal, particularly as such leave was. in favorem vitae. “In saying , this I purposely refrain from expressing any opinion whatever upon the question as to whether the inferences which were drawn by the jury, were, or were not, properly drawn.” concluded his Honour, “or whether their verdict was or was not, one which a -jury, viewing the whole evidence reasonably, could not properly find. These are questions to be decided by the Court of Appeal, The prisoner was accordingly given leave tq appeal at the sittings of the Court of.Appeal,, commencing off Monday. ’ ' ■ 1 , _