MOVE FOR NEW TRIAL OF MAREO

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 151, 21 March 1936, Page 13

MOVE FOR NEW TRIAL OF MAREO

Hearing on Monday

CASE EXPECTED TO LAST THREE DAYS Hearing of an application for a new trial for Eric Mureo, musician, aged 41, who was recently sentenced to death in the Supreme Court at Auckland on a charge of wife murder, will 1 egin iu the Court, of Appeal, at lie, llngton, on Monday morning. It is stated that the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers 1 will preside, and associated with him will be Mr. Justice Heed. Mr. Justice Ostler, Mr. Justice Blair and Mr. Justice Kennedy. Mr. A. H. Johnstone, K.C., with Mr. V. N. Hubble, both of Auckland, will appear for the Crowp, and prisoner will be represented by Mr. H. F. O'Leary, K.C., of Wellington, assisted by Mr. T. Henry and Mr. K. 0. Aekins, of Auckland.

The trial of Mareo, which lasted several days, ended at 8 o’clock on the night of" February 26, when the jury returned a verdict of guilty with a very strong recommendation to mercy. Questions asked by the jury some hours earlier had led the large crowd awaiting the verdict in the Supreme Court to expect that the prisoner would be found guilty of manslaughter and not on the major charge. It was with undisguised surprise that the decision was heard, and repeated calls of “silence” were necessary to restore quiet. The proceedings which will begin in the Court of Appeal on Monday next are expected to occupy three days. The court will be asked to decide whether the inferences which were drawn by the jury were or were not properly drawn, and whether tfteir verdict was or was not one which a jury, viewing the whole of the evidence reasonably, could not properly find.

Mr. O’Leary will argue that the verdict was against the weight of evidence.

When leave to apply to the Court of Appeal for a new trial was sought in an application before Mr. Justice Fair in the Supreme Court in Auckland, Mr. Henry contended that it was reasonably arguable that there were essential facts of the Crown’s case which upon careful examination no reasonable man would consider proved to an extent amounting to a moral certainty in compliance with the higher degree of assurance required in similar cases. The Crown, on the other hand, submitted that all the evidence questioned might properly have been accepted in proof of the charge and to exclude sui-cide-and misadventure whether considered independently or in conjunction with other evidence. The Crown also said that apart altogether from the facts, the proof of which was questioned, the verdict was sound and that it was not reasonably arguable.

His Honour, in granting leave to apply to the Court of Appeal for a new trial, said he did not think he could say there was not reasonably arguable ground upon which it might be coptended that the verdict was such as a jury could not reasonably have found. He wag not disposed to prevent prisoner from submitting his motion to the Court of Appeal, particularly as such leave was “in favorem sitae."