LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1197, 4 August 1911, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

SADLER'S CONVICTION QUASHED. CASHEL STREET MYSTERY. HINT OF SOMETHING TO COME. "The Court is of opinion that the evidence adduced in this case (Sadler's) was insufficient to warrant the jury in finding a verdict of manslaughter. The conviction is, thorefore, quashed. As there is another person to be trind for the same offence, tho Court considers it expedient to defer stating the reasons for its decision until the trial referred to is ended." This was-tile decision of the Court of Appeal, as delivered yesterday, in re the case of Walter Richard Sadler, who, at Christchurch, on May 19, 1911, was convicted of the manslaughter of Ethel May Bradley', and whose case came up for review in the Court of Appeiil on July 6. The history of tho death of Ethel May Bradley, as far as it has been attacked by New Zealand police and law procedure, will no doubt be remembered. At the hearing of the appeal, the Bench was occupied by the Chief justice (Sir Kobert Stout), Sir Joshua Williams, and Justices Denniston, Edwards, and Sim. Counsel were Mr.- T. W. Stringer, K.C., and Mr. T. Neave, for the Crown; Mr. T. G. Hussell and- Mr. M. Donnelly, for Sadler. Messrs. 'Raymond and J. A. Cassidy watched tho case on behalf of Jack, who is mentioned below. > In charging the jury, Mr. Justice Denniston said that, before convicting Sadler, they must be. satisfied that the death was caused by prussic acid; that it had not been administered by deceased herself; that it had not been taken or administered before deceased entered the shop; that it had been administered by or with the knowledge of Sadler in carrying out an illegal purpose: The jury convicted accused (Sadler) of manslaughter, adding a strong recommendation to mercy. Counsel for Sadler asked leave to apply to the Court of Appeal, for a new trial. on tho ground that'the verdict was against the. weight of evidence. His Honour had'decided, in the evTiit of a conviction,. to reserve for the Court of Appeal the question whether, on the evidence, .thero was a case to go to the jury .on tho case put by the Crown, and also granted 'leave to'appeal; Sentence was postponed. until the decision of the Court of Appeal, and the prisoner was admitted to bail. The questions for the Court were: . ,-..,. (1) Was there evidence upon which the jury could properly convict tho prisoner? (2) Was the verdict against the weight of evidence? . ■ : The case against Jack was ordered to stand over until after the decision of the Court of Appeal in Sadler's case. ~' Tho case was.duly argued on July G, and the Court delivered decision yesterday as.above. . Sadler is. therefore acquitted while the caso against .Tack will bo on tho list at'the criminal sessions to open at Cbristchnrch this month. ■'.

A DIRECTION TO A JURY. WAS IT CORRECT? . Yesterday the-Court of Appeal,was oc-cupied-in* considering the special case stated in connection with the case of Hex v Edward* Reynolds and Annie Petersen. The Bench was occupied by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert.Stout), Sir Joshua Williams, and Justices Denniston, Edwards, Chapman, and Sim. Mr. T. Keave appeared for the Crown, Mr. A. Gray for. Keynolds, and Mr. A. L. Herdinan=for Petersen. ' At the*criminal' session of the Supremo Court in May last, before the Chiet Justice, .Annie Petersen, , and Edward -Reynolds were charged with unlawfully using an instrument with intent to procure a miscarriage. Reynolds was further charged with supplying a thins, knowing it to be intended tb procure a miscarriage. Jlr. A. L. Herdman U'or Petersen) end Mr. T. M. AYilford (for Reynolds) asked to hare the- ease against each defendant 1 heard: separately, w.Jfr..: Xeavo (fbr.:,:-the Crown) opposed tliir course. His Honour after retiring to cbiisult with ■ Justice Chapman declined'the nv|iiost, Imt said he would ■ reserve the question for the Court of Appeal. ' ..■• "" *"*•■ : .' When , the case for the Crown had,closed Mr. Uerdman pointed out that there was not any evidence to' corroborate that oi the principal witness, who was an accomplice, and that therefore the jury could not convict.

Jtr. ■VTilford argued to the same effect, said the rase was oiie for acquittal, and asked'his'Honour to'direct the jury accordingly. . v His Honour directed the jury that the 'evidence of the gjrl was that of an accomplice, and went on to <=ay: "An: ancient ln'w : laid down in England is. that, in such a case as this the Courts insist" upon "some corroboradon of the testimony of tlio person, who was a participant in the crime. In my opinion, the corroboratioir in this case is too slight. It is so slight that I could not say to' you that it would bo safe enough for you to convict." The jury returned the verdict: "Not guilty by direction of the Judge." At the request of the Crown Prosecutor, the Chief "Justice- stated a, case for the Court, of Appeal, and the questions to bo determined were:— Was I right in refusing the application for severance? .Was I right in holding that there was not sufficient corrohoration of the girl's story disclosed by the evidence given for "the Crown, to go to the jury? Was I right in directing the jury as set out herein? At the hearing of the appeal yesterdayiMr. "Neave , said that he had two propositions to place before the Court. The first was that a jury may act upon the uncorroborated, evidence of an accomplice, and convict .the accused.on. that evidence provided that a proper warning has been, given by tho Judge presiding as to the unreliability of. such evidence. Tho Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Denniston drew attention to the fact that our law was statutory, .and that there was no provision ior this in the Criminal Cede. Jlr. Neavo submitted that .it was a I matter of practice. In the case of a failtrial, it was one of tho things that ought to bo done. -In a code it would be im- j possible to make provision for all that ought to be tl° llo to ensure a fair trial. The second proposition which counsel had to place' before the Court was tbat. i'n this particular case, there was independent evidence sufficient for the corroboration of the story told by the girl to warrant the Court leaving the case to tho jury with the direction mentioned. An accomplice (couusel contended) was a competent witness;, and, therefore, the question of the accomplice's credibility was the'jury,'*und not for the Judge. ■It was the duty of the Judge to tell the jury that they might, if they pleased, act upon the. uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice, if that evidence (standing alone) induced in their minds a belief in it. But, in this case, tho learned Judge

did not inform the jury of their right to act upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Tie hod,-on the other hand, directed the jury that, even if they believed the girl's story, they might not act upon it. Counsel-quoted numerous 'authorities in support.

The Chief Justice informfd Mr. Neavo. that the Court was of opinion that, feeing that if the Cvo«;n was right in its contention that the case ought not. to have been withdrawn from the jury (as it was withdrawal), it must go to another jury, and fiiat, therefore, the Court ought not now to decide whether there was sufficient oorroboration or not. ■ Mr. Gray contended that, in these cases, the Judge must direct the jury not to convict on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, and he argued that, in this ca?e, there was no cprroboration of the evidence against his client. After conferring with other members of the Bench, the Chief Justice instructedAir. Gray that it was not necessary to show that there was not sufficient enrroboration. as the Court was of opinion that that was a matter for the jury. Mr. Gray then proceeded to argue in the question of severance, and, after Mr. Kcave had replied, the. Court reserved decision.