MANSLAUGHTER VERDICT AT DUNEDIN

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27584, 15 February 1955, Page 14

MANSLAUGHTER VERDICT AT DUNEDIN

Utmost Leniency Recommended

DOCTOR REMANDED FOR SENTENCE

(New Zealand Press Association) DUNEDIN, February 15. After a retirement of more than seven hours the jury trying Senga Florence Whittingham on a charge of murder returned at 1235 a.m. today with a verdict of guilty of manslaughter, with a recommendation that the utmost leniency be extended because the jury believed the firearm was accidentally discharged. Whittingham, who received the verdict impassively, was remanded for sentence until Friday.

Whittingham, a doctor, aged 27, was charged with the murder of a colleague, John William Saunders, on December 12.

It took six hours yesterday for counsel to address the jury and for Mr Justice McGregor to sum up. The address by the Crown Prosecutor (Mr H. S. Adams) lasted for almost two hours; defence counsel (Mr A. J. H. Jeavons) addressed the jury for nearly two hours and a half; and his Honour summed up from 3.30 p.m. to 5.15 p.m. At 7.35 p.m., shortly after having a meal, the jury returned. When his Honour resumed his seat the foreman read a question on the application of the law to manslaughter where the accused had failed to take all reasonable precautions.

His Honour said the question was proper. The law provided that a person in charge or control of anything that might endanger human life was bound to take reasonable precautions against this. If it was felt that all reasonable precautions had not been taken and as a result of that the rifle had accidentally discharged, the jury was entitled to bring in a verdict of manslaughter. What constituted reasonable precautions was a matter for the jury.

At 10.32 p.m. the jury returned again, and was addressed by his Honour. He said that it was to be realised that there were difficulties, and they were a body of men who had taken an oath to return a true verdict.

The verdict came after a six days’ trial.

During the addresses yesterday. |W hittingham collapsed once in the box ■nd hung her head for the rest of the time. She sobbed when counsel ■poke of her association with Saunders. Whittingham showed signs of ■train both times the jury returned Without a decision. As Mr Jeavons mentioned Saunders’s alleged affairs with other women, a major prosecution witness, Nurse Frances Olga Zoe Kearney, also wept. Tears streamed down her face as she left the Court after the lunch adjournment

After Whittingham was escorted from the Court, his Honour told members of the jury that they had deliberated conscientiously. He added that be would give full weight to its recommendation, and he was aware of the thoughts behind it. He dismissed members of the jury from service for five years. In the galleries interest in the verdict was intense. Outside hunttrecis of persons scuttled for ■heLer from the driving rain. By *h® “a* ll door, dozens of persons Waited in the hope of being admitted in time to hear the verdict. Under ■hop verandas opposite the Court, Persons talked over packets Of the cars F»£Kea the full length of the black <i. at one P er son in them. —Crown case is primarily that < S d mean to cau «e the S T - .Saunders on December 12, said Mr Adams to iurv “if Wnn’fkh? “ P rOVed - then ’ you “You must not convict Whittingham ©I this serious crime unless you are convinced that she did. in fact, commit Che crime.

ehZPjf we wish to prove, first is feat the rifle did not accidentally dischyge; that in fact, the trigger was " ed ~ tllus Saunders _ Mr Adams said there was a great Beal of cross-examination by the defence designed to prove that the rifle Was not a perfect piece of mechanism. All perfect mechanisms developed F mc drfects after use, he said, but the Jury had to be fully convinced that the rifle was completely faulty. Sergeant McGuire, arms and ballis- «« «Pert. J*d said there was no mechanical fault that would lead to an accidental discharge of the rifle Mr Adams demonstrated the rifle to'the jury. There was nothing to suggest the rifle was unsafe, he added. Then there was the mention of the looseness of the striking pirf. Mr Adams eaid, but Sergeant McGuire had said he could see no movement. Referring to the discussion on the play of the bolt, Mr Adams said that when the rifle was loaded the bolt eould not be moved. "The pin was pushed into a block of wood,” said Mr Adams. “You will remember that, after that wood experiment. Sergeant McGuire war handed a strip of copper. The came experiment showed a mark, hut no impression, certainly nothing sufficient to discharge a round in the barrel of the rifle.”

Effect of Blew on Balt Mr Adams then referred to the theory of transmission by shock Sergeant McGuire had been asked the effects of a blow on the knob of the bolt, •end had replied that he would rule out such a possibility as firing the rifle by that method. Sergeant McGuire had said the possibilities of accidental discharge were endless, but, said Mr Adams, that did not mean they totalled thousands. It was true the rifle eould be discharged accidentally, tor instance, if the holder fell down a well. But in the present case, he said, there was no accidental discharge. Referring to the difference in trigger pressures, Mr Adams said that Sergeant McGuire had definitely said there were no faults in the rifle to snake it discharge accidentally. Nor bad he seen any marks on the cupboard in the house-surgeons'quarters to indicate that it had been hit sharply by the bolt or butt of the rifle. The jury certainly did not need to Concern itself with the method of discharge mentioned of putting on the safety catch, holding the trigger, and working the safety catch forward, said Mr Adams. It would be silly to put a wound in the chamber and elose the bolt if the idea were to give Dr. Saunders a fright. The obstruction cause mentioned was cot any good, except if there were a final pressure taken and marks on the fcabinct Mr Adams referred to DetectiveBergeant 3. A. Marshall’s evidence on fee marks. There was evidence that there were no marks on the cabinet made by the rifle used by Whittingham. Whittingham had furthermore admitted puffing the trigger. The pull was stated by Sergeant McGuire to be three-quarters of a pound lighter than feat <rf other rifles at this type. The Crown suggested there was ample pressure to prevent an accident by a woman, with a rifle of this type. Fa mage of Bullet “There are several established facts concerning the passage of the bullet,” said Mr Adams. "One is, there was a hole in the lavatory waff. Next, Saunders was standing at the lavatory to a natural posittoJ? . Mr Adams then referred to Dr. E.

F. D*Ath’s evidence. Dr. D’Ath had said that his conclusion was that the bullet had travelled on a slightly downward flight, losing about three inches from the rifle muzzle to the hole in the lavatory wall, said Mr Adams. Dr. D’Ath also concluded that the assailant stood to the left of the lavatory, and the rifle had been fired from shoulder or armpit level. Mr Adams submitted that once the bullet, or fragments, left the body, they travelled in a straight line. There was nothing between the body and the wall to deflect the bullet. Mr Adams referred to Whittingham’s letters to Mrs Saunders.

“No doubt you have sympathy,’’ he said. “But you must consider this case on the evidence and not on sympathy. Whittingham’s illnesses do not explain or excuse anything she did, except that they furnish a motive for the shooting of Saunders“There was no provocation,’’ he added. “It does not arise in this case at all. Nothing which extends from June, 1953, to the illnesses in 1954, suggests provocation for the shooting of Saunders.’’ Mr Adams asked where there was any evidence that Whittingham had had any insulin that day. As she was a house surgeon it would be foolish to pre-suppose she had had an overdose. Evidence had been given by those at the house-surgeons’ quarter? that she was calm, and showed no evidence of being anything but normal, said Mr Adams. She had also been calm on her way to the police station. There were no signs that Whittingham had an overdose of insulin to justify such a contention by the defence, claimed Mr Adams. Dr. D’Ath had said there was nothing sinister about the accused having insulin and a syringe in her pocket. Mr Adams then dealt with the events of December 11 and 12, 1954. Whittingham spoke to Saunders on the Friday she came back from Balclutha, said Mr Adams. “You can assume that Nurse Kearney promised to come and see her and that Whittingham waited in her quarters,” he said. “She was waiting in her room until sometime about 8 o’clock that night. She went out and was back in her room at 10 o’clock.

“She was twice at the house surgeon’s quarters, the second time about midnight,” continued Mr Adami. “Having seen Saunders she went to her quarters for the rifle and ammunition, came back, climbed the fire escape and loaded the rifle in the building- She went back to the bathroom again. “Shot Without Warning” “She saw Saunders go past the door and followed him to the bathroom,” said Mr Adams. “The fact is Saunders died from a bullet from her rifle, was shot without any warning and in a position where he could neither turn nor get out. “If Saunders had seen a rifle pointed at him, to frighten him, he, a big man. would have turned and grasped the rifle and thus saved his life. He did not get that chance. “The prosecution contends it was a very odd thing for a person to hunt down Saunders just to frighten him,” continued Mr Adams. “Although there might have been anger or jealously in the early part of the evening, there was ample time for her to come to her senses in the remainder of the evening. “She didn’t mean to frighten him,” said Mr Adams. “She searched for him, she followed him to the lavatory with a loaded rifle, and he died with a bullet in the middle of his back.”

[ Whittingham took four rounds with . her, yet one showed signs of being ; loaded three times. Why should she i take so many bullets if she was only going to frighten him? Was she going • to fire a fusillade? On Whittingham’s ■ actions alone, there was sufficient evil dence for the jury to find that her > intentions were to kill Saunders. “She had previously written to [ Saunders’s mother that she had felt like killing Bill,” said Mr Adams. The Crown did not want that to be taken as a firm pointer on Whittingham’s actions, but it showed the workings of her mind. Mr Adams referred to telephone conversations between Whittingham and Miss Kearney. A threat was uttered at 6.30 pm. and later Whittingham went out to find Saunders. In answer to Sergeant Farquhar, she had said: “I loaded the rifle. I pulled the trigger. I know what I did.” Mr Adams referred to the letter addressed to “Dear Liz.” The prosecution, he said, asked that the letter be regarded as a farewell letter by Whittingham. What other interpretation could be placed on it? Whittingham was going out to kill Dr. Saunders. This was intended to be a letter which would have been found afterwards when Mrs Saunders had lost a 1 son and the Whittinghams had lost a daughter. It was overwhelming proof for the charge of murder, said Mr “If you accept the excuse that she wanted to frighten Saunders with a loaded rifle, I submit it was an unlawful object and was an assault,” he i said. “If she meant to discharge the rifle, the act is one she should have known was likely to cause death.” Referring to the Christmas parcel

produced on Saturday, Mr Adams said: “That was produced as soon as asked for. The question is not one whether the Crown is taking an unfair advantage or not” Defence Counsel’s Address Mr Jeavons said there might be the possibiity of considering a of manslaughter and the possible accidental discharge of the rifle. Among the mass of probabilities in the case there were only two certainties, said Mr Jeavons. One, the rifle held in the hands of Whittingham had gone off, and two, a man had died. They could point to guilt, and equally could point to innocence of the crime of murder.

First, the intentions of Whittingham had to be considered. If the question of accident arose, then the degree of care by Whittingham had to be considered. On a murder charge the jury was concerned with the intention of the accused to kill, or wound in such a way as to cause death. Manslaughter, in such a trial, could arise in many ways, said Mr Jeavons. In this case the jury was concerned only if it felt Saunders came to his death by accident. and only if Whittingham did not take reasonable care.

“On the facts presented it is your duty to acquit,” said Mr Jeavons. “The evidence points to a tragic, but nonculpable, accident. “The Crown has put forward a reconstruction of what occurred,”! continued Mr Jeavons. “It says you must deduce the guilt of the accused. I propose to put forward another reconstruction, fitting the facts better than that of the Crown. First, it is necessary to discuss the whole known history of Whittingham and Saunders. If you can understand how they felt you can probably understand how they acted.”

Mr Jeavons then read the letter from Whittingham to Mrs Saunders concerning the abortions. While he was reading the letter Whittingham sobbed bitterly, with her head hung low. Mr Jeavons was asked to stop by his Honour and the Court crier gave Whittingham a glass of water. She appeared to recover a little but kept her head low, and continued to weep quietly. “There was an abortion and you heard her account of it,” Mr Jeavons said. “Do any of you have any doubt this was a spurious engagement? For what purpose? She learned very rapidly she was not the first and suffered disillusionment. It is perfectly obvious she was obsessed with Bill. This dominates the whole case. She was obsessed with the idea he could come back again. “Her troubles did not end, and she suffered infection. It is open for you to consider if this near-fatal illness was directly the result of the abortion, so that she could not get the child she wanted. She had no-one to turn to for help. She turned to Mrs Saunders, and her letters were not answered. Can you now wonder what her physical and mental state was?” Mr Jeavons referred to the “Dear Bill” letter from Balclutha Hospital. “Having been through all she had been in 1953 and 1954, you see the same patience and longing,” Mr Jeavons said. “Are you going to believe the girl killed him with hate? You have a document which tells you what she felt like on the Saturday. ‘I am now down to my lowest ebb and misfortune’—and so she was,” said Mr Jeavons. “Was there any way she could get him back, could attract his pity, if nothing else? He wouldn’t take any notice. So, on December 11, she watched and waited, and saw him return An his car. She thought she would find a way of showing Bill that she was desperate. “She got a rifle, with the one intention—of making a scene,” Mr Jeavons said. “It would be taken from her. She wouldn’t resist. But Bill would realise she was desperate and that she was a distraught woman. Loading of Rifle

“Some might ask, why load it?” said Mr Jeavons. “If she went there as a distraught and desperate woman and the rifle was taken off her and discovered empty she would be a fool. They would laugh at her. But loaded, Bill would realise at what a low ebb she was. Was it not likely that she went there to make Bill think she was going to commit suicide? It was a womanly scene. You are all men of the world. You know women can make just a scene for the purpose of some notice being taken of them. “She got the rifle and was prepared to go into the lounge and stage the scene,” said Mr Jeavons. “But she heard footsteps. She ducked into the bathroom. It was Saunders. By the strangest accident the scene was to be staged there—not in the sitting-room where she had intended. “She spoke to him. He turned. She brought the rifle forward to show him and then, the room was full of smoke. It had gone off accidentally as she brought it forward. She didn’t mean to kill him, but he was dead a moment later.” At this stage of the hearing, both Whittingham and Nurse Kearney were quietly sobbing. “Having put before you an explanation, we now propose to test it against every known fact put forward in the box,” Mr Jeavons said. “I ask you to put aside the fact of the death and the discharge of the rifle. These are known. “The first fact is that Whittingham owned the rifle. But, remember, she purchased the rifle 10 months previously. They intended to go shooting together. It was another pathetic at* tempt to find a common level with Bill. “The next fact, as the Crown laboriously contended, was the furtive manner in which she bought the rifle. She had, said Crossland, the vendor, mentioned a brother. But she had gone openly to the police to register tbe weapon. There was no furtiveness on her part. “Intended to Frighten” “Now came the point that she took the rifle to him to frighten Saunders. There was no mention .that she said she intended to kill him, nor even any intention of pointing it at him. She intended to frighten him, and possibly convince him that she intended using, it on herself to convince him that she was, indeed, a desperate woman.” Whatever took place on Mrs Saunders’s porch, said Mr Jeavons, it was difficult to recall in a general way what had taken place in the past. “What was said, that day?” he asked. It was easy in the light of the subsequent tragedy to be confused as to events. Mrs Saunders undoubtedly thought something might happen. But did Mrs Saunders think Whittingham was going to murder her son? “And if she did, why did she ask—‘Have you the gun in your handbag?’ I suggest that was the apprehension of Mrs Saunders,” said Mr Jeavons. “She felt that Whittingham might do something serious to herself, not to Dr. Saunders, who was many miles away. “And on that occasion Mrs Saunders took Whittingham back into her home, comforted her, and drove her home. She also offered to help her in the future. She even offered Whittingham asylum in her own home. “Is that the treatment a mother would give to a girl who had solemnly promised to kill her son?” asked Mr Jeavons. “There is more. The letter of January preceding the interview, when Whittingham said: ‘Though I love Bill I could kill him for this.’ It is the sort of thing that happens in our own homes. I dismiss it as evidence.” Mr Jeavons said that Sergeant Farquhar’s evidence had added little to the picture except two points. Sergeant Farquhar had alleged that the accused had said, *T didn’t know what made me do it,” and “I pulled the trigger.” The first thing that had to be considered was whether these words were said. The second phrase stuck out like a bandaged thumb. It was the vital statement, but had not even been reported to Detective-Ser-geant Marshall. Sergeant Farquhar himself had stated in evidence that other witnesses mentioned this remark. Sergeant Farquhar did say that the accused answered in a quiet voice. “Though the reply may not have been

heard, I put it to you that Sergeant Farquhar’s question should have been heard,” Mr Jeavons said. “His voice, to put it mildly, is clearly audible. The witness Morgan at first stated that at all times he was in a position to hear what was said between the sergeant and the accused, but he had not mentioned this question. “These circumstances must cast extreme doubt on the sergeant’s evidence. I am not attacking Sergeant Farquhar, and am not suggesting that it was deliberate, but you know and 1 know how difficult it is to remember every detail,” Mr Jeavons continued.

The normal way to discharge a firearm was to pull the trigger, and it was quite possible that Sergeant Farquhar asked, “Did you discharge the firearm?”

The jury should remember that the sergeant’s information had been secured by question and answer, a method that was strongly condemned throughout the British Commonwealth by judges as a method of interrogation by police officers. Dealing with the telephone conversation with Zoe Kearney, Mr Jeavons said that if the accused had any chance with Saunders she would have had to find a way of shifting the other girl from his life. Whittingham would know that Kearney was probably not aware of what she had been through, and intended to shock her away from him. That was why she said she was the “mother of Bill’s child.” “She wasn’t, but that was not her fault.” counsel said.

The Crown had placed a sinister suggestion on Whittingham’s remarks to Miss Kearney that if she went out with Saunders she “would be sorry, more sorry than you realise.” Surely this was nothing more than a warning from the accused, who was afraid that Miss Kearney might find herself in the position that she herself had been placed in. The accused, by arranging an appointment with Miss Kearney, had hoped that she would be shocked and the way would be clear for a reconciliation. Miss Kearney had not come. If the jury remembered that the accused was in a s tete of black despair and doubtless so overwhelmed with misfortune that she was at the point of death, it would be easy to . see that the letter to “Liz” was only natural. Was it unnatural to write to a close friend and ask her to comfort those the accused loved,” Mr Jeavons said. The Crown had used this letter to show intent because Mrs Saunders was mentioned. The accused had regarded Mrs Saunders as a second mother, and if she had taken her life and the whole story been brought to light, Mrs Saunders would need comforting. “She would have known that her son had played a great part in bringing about the accused’s end. Is that not a reason why Mrs Saunders should be comforted?” Mr Jeavons continued. Finding- of Insulin The topic of insulin had also been introduced, with obvious sinister intent, by the Crown, but had rebounded rather badly. The Crown had even got to the stage of asking a medical student (McMahon) questions to get itself out of the trouble that the expert (Dr. D’Ath) had left it. Constable Fallon had said that Whittingham said she was taking insulin for her appetite. “I did not press the matter, but, gentlemen of the jury, fee warned,” counsel said. “What might appear sinister on the surface could have a simple explanation, as shown here.” The effects of this insulin may have played some part in the events, but even assuming the trigger was pulled, it was not done with intent. Mr Jeavons said that one of the greatest uncertainties was the direction bullet. Dr. D’Ath had conceded that there could well be a curvature if the bullet struck a bone. By the time the bullet continued another two or three feet there could be a large error. It was also significant that in the lower Court Dr. D’Ath’ had claimed that the rifle was fired from the hip. He had changed this to the shoulder in the Supreme Court, with the explanation that the first answer had been given on the spur of the moment. The Crown had failed to bring evidence about tests conducted after the iower Court on the possibility that the rifle had accidentally discharged Mr Jeavons continued. It had to be dragged out by the defence, because it was fatal to the Crown case. The Crown, had also tried to conceal photographs of a locker. The jury might condemn the attitude of the Crown in withholding the Christmas card. Mr Jeavons continued. The fact was that it was certainly not going to be produced until the defence learned about it “This parcel was found in the room of the girl whom the Crown will have you believe was filled with hate and vengeance and intended to murder a man,” Mr Jeavons said. “Senga Whittingham believed there would be a Christmas for Bill Saunders, and what subsequently happened was no intention of hers.” Summing up, his Honour asked the jury to put aside all sympathy with the relatives of Dr. Saunders and all sympathy which it understandably would have for the accused. Judge Sums Up His Honour said it was clear that the accused and Dr. Saunders were engaged to be married for a few months in 1953, and the engagement had been broken off in about September, 1953. “It was accepted that on the evening of the tragedy the deceased had made arrangements to go out with the witness Kearney. This was known to the accused and telephone conversations took place. It is also common ground that the deceased and his party returned to the house surgeons’ quarters about midnight, and that the accused was there. It is also common ground that the accused took with her a rifle and four rounds, and loaded them in the bathroom or in the vestibule alongside. It is also accepted that the deceased died as the result of a wound from the discharge of the rifle.” A great amount of evidence had been given on how the rifle had been discharged, and the accused had given some facts in way of explanation, said his Honour. The Crown also gave its views on what happened, and asked the jury to draw some inferences about the moment of the discharge of the rifle. The accused also gave an explanation to Detective-Sergeant Marshall, and one of the important points was that she had said the room was full of smoke and had said she had not meant to do it. The accused had also given other explanations in her statement.

“There might be several interpretations of the explanations, and various

inferences may be drawn from them,” continued his Honour. “But it does seem a starting point that something was premeditated. It is not disputed that the rifle was loaded and that the accused had gone to the Queen Mary Hospital for a rifle. “On the other hand, there has been a reasonable inference that the rifle was fired from the shoulder. If that inference is correct, it would appear that the accused sighted and aimed the rifle at the deceased.” Of the discharge of the rifle there was only one certain piece of evidence, said his Honour. The rest was only conjecture. It was certain that a hole had been found in the wall 43 inches from the floor and 10 inches from the wall on the right. Tbe Crown asked the jury to consider this one indisputable fact. His Honour then said that Dr. D’Ath had carried out measurement experiments with a dummy at the scene of the alleged murder, and there had been evidence given implying that the bullet had been going down, which in turn implied that the rifle had been fired from shoulder height. “But if reliance is to be placed on such measurements as these, then measurements should have also been taken on the body,” his Honour said. “There was a disparity on Dr. D’Ath’s evidence on measurements which \oere brought up in the lower Court.”

Because it was difficult to assess how high or how low Dr. Saunders’s trousers were at any one particular time, was another reason why not too much reliance should be put on the evidence of measurements, his Honour said. •

Margins of Error “When dealing in small margins of error you might have trouble in coming to an 1 agreement on the trajectory of the bullet,” he added. “Stance could also have a bearing on the subject. If the deceased had looked around, his shoulder could have gone up, and with the same movement the deceased’s trousers could have moved up or down.” There was also some difficulty in deciding the true trajectory of the bullet from the muzzle of the gun to the hole in the wall. Commenting on what happened at the time of the rifle’s discharge, his Honour said there had been some difficulty in coming to an agreement on what had actually happened. Did the accused have her finger on the trigger? Was it pointed to the ground? Was it pointed to Dr- Saunders? Were there any marks on the locker? Were there any marks on the butt? Did the accused mean to frighten him or did she point it at his back with the intention of firing it at him? All these questions had to be considered, continued his Honour. In addition was the question which had been put by Sergeant Farquhar, “Did you pull the trigger?” The answer had been, “Yes, I pulled it.” The defence had strongly condemned Sergeant Farquhar’s conduct when interviewing the accused. “I do not agree,” said his Honour. “Sergeant Farquhar had little knowledge of the facts of the case, and was entitled to make some inquiries. He did not exceed his duty necessary in preliminary inquiries.” Consideration, however, would have to be given to the state of mind and the state of exhaustion of the accused at the time. Condition of Rifle Another factor was how the rifle came to be discharged, said his Honour. In this respect the evidence of Sergeant McGuire would have to be considered. It was evident that the rifle was not 100 per cent., and could be discharged in various ways. “It is a matter for you to decide how the rifle was discharged, and how much reliance you can place on Sergeant McGuire’s evidence.” There was also Sergeant Farquhar’s evidence. Both were of the utmost importance. “Here we have a clear case of the deceased being killed, directly or indirectly, by the actions of the accused,” his Honour said. “The next matter to decide is whether this is culpable or not culpable homicide.” The question of manslaughter would have to be decided- Did the accused do an unlawful act or without lawful excuse fail to perform any legal duty? “The defence says that it was excusable homicide, and no-one was to blame,” said his Honour. “But the basic facts are these: it is clear that the accused secured her rifle from the Queen Mary Hospital only a matter of minutes before the tragedy: it was clear that it was loaded; and, third, she went into the bathroom when she heard footsteps coming; it is also clear that she was the person in charge of the loaded rifle, and a person has a legal duty in these cases to take reasonable precautions and care, and is responsible if this is not done. “It is up to you to decide whether she took reasonable precautions and care.”

Turning to the threat of suicide, his Honour said the problem was to find out what was behind it all. Was she going to get back her lover by threatening suicide? He added that the jury should take into full account the accused’s statements and lack of experience with a rifle. “If you think the accused did not live up to a reasonable standard of care, it is your duty to bring in a verdict of manslaughter. If you have reasonable doubts whether or not she was careless, the accused Is entitled the benefit of the doubt.”

Direction on Murder Charge Directing the jury on the charge of murder, his Honour said there was a need for an additional element—malice on the part of the aggressor. The jury was faced with the state of mind of the accused person. Was there a wrong intention at the time? Was it her intention to kill and cause the death of Saunders? The accused’s words, “I didn’t mean to do it,’’ had to be taken into account in this respect. There was also the other statement, “I didn’t mean to do any more than frighten him with the gun.

“What was the intention here?” asked his Honour. “Did she mean to commit suicide, or did she mean to frighten him by firing the rifle? Did she mean not to kill? Was she reckless whether death might ensue or not?’* Turning to the correspondence that had been brought forward in exhibits, his Honour said that the interpretation of the letters would have to be left to the jury. There was also the question of the Christmas parcel from the accused to Dr. Saunders. It was reasonable to suppose that when it had been wrapped by the accused the

assumption was that Dr. Saunders receive it on Christmas Day. Different interpretations could also b, e on telephone conversation that the accused had with Miss Kearney. One was that the accused had suffered in relations with Dr. Saunders, and she was just warning another girl of what might happen to her. There was also a sinister interpretation, but in such a grave charge it would be well to hesitate before placing anything sinister on it, said his Honour.