SUPREME COURT.

Evening Post, Volume LIX, Issue 127, 30 May 1900, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. YESTERDAY. (Before his Honour the Chief Justice.) THE GRAND JURY. The Grand Jury finisßud 'its deliberations late- yesterday afternoon, returning True Bills in all the remaining cases brought before it. THE CUBA-STREET MURDER CASE. VERDICT OF GUILTY. ' The trial of John Deighton for the murder of his infant child proceeded after we went to press yesterday. In the course of his address on ,the prisdnei-'s behalf, Mr. Jellicoe said the only question for the consideration of the jury was the mental responsibility of the accused — whether at the moment of committing the terrible deed he was capable of distinguishing right from wrong. Counsel drew attention to the wretched condition of the man's home, due to no fault of his own, but to the intemperate habits of his wife, and argued that owing to his worry of mind he had become possessed of the fixed idea that to commit murder was right. If a man became reduced to that state of mind no one could say that he was capable of distinguishing right from wrong. He put it to the jury that if Deighton had taken his own life after killing his child they would not have hesitated to return a verdict of suiside while temporarily insane. Why, therefore, should they hesitate now? This was a case in which the strain upon the man might have brought a flaw in his mind to light. Such cases were not unknown, as he showed. Mr. Jellicoe concluded as follows: — "Into your hands now I commend a brother's life, for by the common tie of humanity all men are brothers. I beg you with the last tones of my voice to do with your weak-minded brother as you would, if you were placed in such dire straits, have your brother do unto you. And may the Lord direct you right.' The Chief Justice, in the course of his summing up, said that in this case, unlike many cases, there was no dispute tbat the accused killed his child. The only issue, therefore, the jury "had to try was as to his slat© of mind ab the time he committed the deed. Our law was very precise on this subject. The Criminal Code clearly laid down when 1 man wus to be acquitted on the grourid of insanity. It said that a man must be labouring either under natural imbecility or disease of mind, and it must be disease of the mind to such an extent as to render him incapable -of understanding the nature or the quality of the act he was committing,, and incapable of knowing that the act he was doing was wrong. Could the jury say in this case that accused did not know when he was killing his child that he was doing wrong? Unless the evidence showed this to be so, it was their bounden duty to find him guilty. The man's home ha d been shown to be a miserable one, as the homes of all drunkards were. His Honour knew of nothing more depressing than to have to live in the home of a drunkard. The accused seemed to have been fond of his child, but even though he thought that child might be brought up in a bad way, he 'had no right to take its life. There was no evidence whatever that the man ever had any mental disease, and when examined two or three hours afterwards there was no suggestion that he was insane. There was no evidence of mental derangement either before or after the acfc, except the evidence of the witness Sweeney, who said that he talked of murder or suicide, or both, when playing a game of cards on the day of the murder. It was said that it was an irresistible impulse. That was not what the jury had to consider. They had to consider was there any evidence that at the time he committed the deed he did not know the • quality df the act, and did not know that he was doing wrong. As to the question of mercy, neither the jury nor himself had anything to do with that. They had to do their duty and to investigate this case, and not look at all at the penalty of the law. That was entirely for the Executive Government of the colony/v The jury could, if the case required y^ pring in a recommendation of mercyj but they ought not to let the gravity. 3ot the punishment influence them either one way or the other. His Honour did not consider it necessary, in view of the narrow issue before the jury, to go into the evidence. He asked the jury to look at the question carefully and cautiously. They must assume the man was sane until he was proved insane, and at the same time they must not be neglectful of the vfact that it was a terrible crime for a father to kill an infant three months old. This man might have thought- he was doing the child a benefit by taking its life, but his belief was not an excuse for committing a crime. Therefore, it all came back to the point, did he know he was doing wrong? Again he asked the jury to consider the . matter carefully, not only because of the seriousness of the crime, but also because of the consequences to society if murder went unpunished. The jury retired at ten minutes to 4 o'clock and after an hour's deliberation returned with a verdict of Guilty. The foreman added that the jury wished to put on record the fact that they realised the painful circumstances of the case, and strongly recommended the prisoner to the mercy of the Crown. His Honour said he would forward the recommendation in the usual form to His Excellency the Governor. The prisoner making no reply to the usual question put by the Registrar, His Honour assumed the black cap and passed sentence of death, and the prisoner was then removed to the cells below.