LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1173, 7 July 1911, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

— t COURT OF APPEAL. CHRISTCHURCH MYSTERY, W, R, SADLER'S APPEAL, AGAINST CONVICTION FOB JIAXSLAUGHTEIf. The conviction of AVnlter Hichard Sadler, who, at Chrislcluirch, on Jlay 1!), 1011, was convicted of tho manslaughter of Ethel Jlay Brndloy, canio up for review in tho Court of Appeal yesterday, on an application for a new trial. The Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and their Honours Sir J. S. William?, Mr. Justice Denniston, Mr. Justice Edwards, and Mr. Justice Sim were 011 the Bench. Counsel were Mr. T. W. Stringer, Iv.C., m lu Neave, for the Crown; Mr. .. .f 1, Russell and Mr. M. Doimellv, for Sadler. il p ssrs. Raymond and J. A. Cassidy watched the case 011 behalf of Jack. Jll the statement of the case prepared lor the Court of Appeal, Mr. Justice Bonlnstou, who presided over the trial at ( hri.>tchui'cl>, said: The prisoner was indicted with.Harry Alexander Jack on the elinrge that, 011 February 7, 1911, they unlawfully killed JJfhel May Bradley, thereby committing liiiyder. Before their arraignment. an apiilicatir.,ll was made on i>ehali of .Jack that the prisoners should l>e tried separately, and the ea-se against hauler dependeil largely 011 a statement made by hint, which would not be eviilcncc against Jaclc. j granted the application. _ ]t was. proved that the body was at 7 o'clock on fhe morning of Wodn.esflny, "February', S. found in an alley off Casliel Street, Cliristchnrcli. A postmortem examination was made that afternoon, and there was evidence to go to 1 jury tliat the death was caused by prussic acid, and that she was from two ■to. two and a half mouths advanced in pregnancy. It was proved that between 1 ana 7.30 p.m. on the evening of tho preceding day, she had left tho bouse in Viiieli she was engaged as housekeeper, and bad beDn ?ce» in apparently good health at 7.55 on that evening, going in the direction of the Zetland Hotel, Casliel Street; that about 8.30 p.m. n woma.:i, whom the jury would be justified in believing to be the deceased, was joined by Jack close to the hotel, iu circumstances nli.'ch would suggest an appointment. There was evidence that at a time deposed to as 9 p.m.. Jack and a woman dressed similarly to deceased were seen ta zo to the shop in Casliel Street, where Sadler carried 011 business as 3 hairdresser and tobacconist, with Jack as an assistant. It was proved that deceased and Jack had been keeping eompany together, and that she had frequently visited the shop to see Jack, and that this was known to Sadler; that Jack and Sadler had been seen together in High Street at 10 p.m. on the 7th and in the vicinity of the spot where the body was found at 7 a.m. 011 the Sth. Sadler and deceased had been schoolfellows. A statement signed by Sadler 011 February 21 and repeated on oath at the inquest was to tho effect that about 9.30 p.m. on the 7th Jack had brought deceased to the shop, saying she was very ill; that she appeared very ill; that he sent Jack to the Zetland Hotel, a few yards off, for some whisky; that she became so ill that ho left the shop and ran to tho hotel for Jack, whom he found at the' bar, having just got the whisky; that they ran back to the shop and found her either dead or dying; that in their excitement they went out and saw and spoke to a policeman; that they were too frightened to do; anything, and walked about tho streets until about 2 a.m., when they'placed the body in a sack, and carried it to the placc whero it was found, taking the sack back to the shop. The story is entirely at variance with the story earlier told by Sadler to the police. It is also inconsistent with the accounts of witnesses as to Jack's movements during the evening. 011 opening this evidence to the jury, coun.wl for the Crown said he could not put it to them that, the case'was 0110 of murder, and that he could only ask for a verdict of manslaughter. The'theorv put by him was that the woman had"been brought to the shop to have an illegal operation performed by Sadler; that in pursuance of this design Sadler had unintentionally administered a dose of prussic acid (hydrocyanic acid), believing if to be an extract of hydrastis, the appearance of the two iu solution being practically identical, and the names likely to induce such a mistake. There was 110 evidence of the purchase of poison by deceased (except strychnine, which was satisfactorily explained) or by either of the prisoners. Ko evidence wa's called for the prisoner. In charging the jury, I directed them that before convicting the prisoner they niiist be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the death was caused by prussic acid; that it had not been adnunistered by deceased herself; that it had not been taken or administered beore deceased entered the shop; that it had been administered by or with the knowldege of Sadler in carrying out an illegal purpose. The jury ronvicted accused of manslaughter, adding a strong recommendation to mercy. Counsel for prisoner asked leave to apply to the Court of Appeal for a' new trial on the ground that the dence a ° ainst the wci skt of cviI stated that I had decided, in the event of _ a conviction, to reserve for the Court of Appeal the question whether, on the evidence, there was a case, to go to the jury on the case put by the Crown, and that I would reserve the point, and also grant leave to appeal. I postponed sentence until the decision of the Court ot Appeal an d admitted prisoner to bail. The questions for the Court are:— . (1) Was there evidence upon which the ~' U JI properly'convict the prisoner? (-) )> as the verdict against the weight of evidence? „ cas ° was ordered to stand ovei until after the decision of the Court ot Appeal in Sadler's case. . At the opening of yesterday's proceedings it was decided, after some consideration that counsel for the appellant should begin. Jl , r ' "? traversed the evidence, i.nd contended that it did not negative every hypothesis other than that the prisoner was guilty of administering the poison. Mr. Donnelly said that after the Crown abandoned the charge of murder, its ca«" rested upon: the theory that Sadler übtainec prussic acid from a chemist in mistake for hydrastis. Such a mistake pad cot. been proved, and was most unlikely. It would have meant gross ne*ligence on the part of the chemist, and he had never hoard of such a circumstance in the whole of his journalistic and lepal career. Mr. Stringer argued that the evidence as to disposal of the body established a prima facie case. Did the circumstantial evidence csclnde all other hypotheses except, the one that the appellant had administered the poison? The onlv other possible hypotheses were (11 that deceased committed suicide, and .'2) that some other persons administered the poison. Counsel then discusser! the evidence to show that it was inconsistent with either of hypotheses. Mr Neave did not address the Court. After hearing Mr. j n reply their Honours reserved their judgment/