THE OTAKI MANSLAUGHTER CASE.

Evening Post, Volume LXIV, Issue 43, 19 August 1902, Page 5

THE OTAKI MANSLAUGHTER CASE.

HIS HONOUR'S SUMMING UP. VERDICT OF GUILTY. LAW POINTS YET TO BE DECIDED. When wo went to press yesterday afternoon, the jury had jußt retired to consider its verdict in the case heard in the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Edwards in which Mrs. Harriet Drake, of Otuki, was charged with having caused the defflh of her eight-year-old child, Dorothy Gwendoline, by the infliction of excessive punishment. His Honour, >yho occupied some forty minutes in summing up, reviewed the evidence in a clear manner, and summed up strongly against the accused. Commenting upon the mode in which the child had been punished by her two elder sisters, his Honour said it was for the jury to say whether the supplejack was a proper weapon with which to chastise a child of such tender 33 rearß.r earB. He condemned in strong terms accused's action in allowing the girls Loota and May to punish Dorothy with such a weapon. Was it reasonable for a mother to delegate the punishment of a very young child to older sisters of the child? No parent was justified in so doing whilst she herself was present and able to correct the child. At any rate, it was the law that Mrs. Drake was responsible for the punishment' inflicted by her daughters. If the jury, considering all the circumstances, thought that more than a proper amount of punishment had been inflicted upon the child, they were justified in bringing in a verdict of Guilty. The two primary questions for the jury to answer were : Did the excess of force of the punishment result in the child's death? if not, did the punishment result in severe harm to the child ? Before answering tlio first question in the affirmative, it was necessary for the jury to find that the blows caused death, though they might not have been necessarily the immediate cause of death. Even if the blows brought on | haemophilia, as lias been suggested by the defence, the prisoner was none the less guilty of the charges brought against her if the jury came to the conclusion that the punishment was excessive and unlawfully severe. If the blows caused death by shock, or by concussion, that was manslaughter; if the blows brought on this rare disease hsemophilia, that also was manslaughter. But, after all, hoemophilia had only been suggested by the defence. As to the absence of weals on the child's ' body — of which a great deal had been made by counsel for the accused— Dr. James, who wrts a, reliable and competent authority, had said that the effect of blows upon the 'human body differed very much according to the person struck. Despite the fact that there were no weals on the child's body, -it bad been admitted by the accused and both -her daughters that the child had been whipped. How were they going to get over that undisputed fact? It had also been suggested that the child might have died from suffocation or from convulsions, but against these. statements .must be set the medical testimony that deaths from such causes could not result without attracting the attention of persons present with the victim at the time. The post-mortem examination also hod not disclosed any signe of either suffocation or convulsions. On the other hand, accused had undoubtedly admitted to several witnesses that she had. punished the child severely, and she hod also coupled death with that punishment. . It was not credible that a medical man in Dr. Power's position would concoct the statements' wnich he testified, had been made to him by the accused, and which she, denied having made. Hio Honour could not see -why Dr. Power's veracity should have been questioned, for he must have known, -when he, refused to give the accused the certificate of death, that .he was acting in a manner which was detrimental to his practice bo far at that client was concerned. There was no reason to doubt -the statements of either Dr. Potor, Constable O'Rourke, or Chief Detective M'Qrath concerning what accused had admittedto each of them about the punishment of her child. His Honour could not see that the -woman's responsibility in the matter was lessened even if the child died from son» obscure disease. The primary question still remained— What caused her death? Reverting again to the suggestions put forward by the defence, his Honour said there was the absolute evidence of the observations of Dr. 'Power and Constable O'Rourke that thay had seen bruises upon the - child's body on the night before the post mortem examination was made, therefore the suggestion that they- were post mortem Btain> was disposed of. The principal of the two considerations for the jury was the question— Was this a. fair, reasonable, and proper correction for th© mother to inflict upon* her child for obstinacy? If the jury said No to this question, then the matter was .ended and the major count was answered. If the jury was in doubt there was still the minor count of common assault for them to answer. Mr. Gray reminded his Honour that the defence had made something of the child's fall in the diningroom on Thursday morning. His Honour, continuing to address the, jury, Mid that the question of the importance of the fo*ll had been completely disposed of by Dr. James and the other experts. Had the fall been at all a dangerous one, from which concussion or shock resulted, the child could not have been playing about for the rest of the day. The effect of a shock or concussion whiclr had fatal effects would be apparent immediately. Again, there was no direct evidence that there had been a fall. At any rate, no one in the kitchen who heard tho fall troubled to go into the diningroom to see whether the child was hurt. If the jury -belieVed the suggestion that concussion resulted from that fall, then it must also believe that the motherland her two daughters thrashed the child when she was/Suffering from the effects of concussion. This was a conclusion even more horrible than that connected with the charge before the Court. Tho jury, which had retired «t 3.30 o'clock, returned after an absence of two hours wjth a verdict of Guilty of manslaughter, and a recommendation to' .mercy. There were some "Hurrahs" raised by women in the gallery when the verdict! was given, but they were silenced immediately by the police. His • Honour observed— "These lpdios, by their conduct, wish to exclude their, >sex from future attendance in the gal 4 The foreman (Mr. T. Wilson) said tho members of the jury desired to thank his Honour and all the Court officials and tile police for the consideration and kindness which had been shown them during the six days they had been em gaged upon the ense. The jury had received every attention. His Hofc-iur replied that he was glad to hear such testimony. The jury ought to have received every attention, for their task had been a thankless and arduous one. The jury was then (banked and discharged. My. Skerrett reminded his Honour that he had reserved leave to appeal against certain evidence bearing upon incidents prior to the dato of the child's death, and against the admission of -which he (Mr. Skerrett) had protested. He would like his Honour to give him (Mr. Skerrett) an opportunity of making an application to submit the point raised to the Appeal Court. His Honour said he would reserve th&

point, aud v,ii;> jirt-pwed to state a cuse for the Ai>\icn\ Court if the applicat.ua was persisted in. Further consideration of the case and of the sentence would bo reserved until Thursday morning. If the appeal was made, he would allow the prisoner bail, on the understanding that substantial securities -were forthcoming. i Bail woe again allowed to Mrs. Drake, who was weeping bitterly, and bad to be supported and half carried out of Court by her husband. The Court then rose.