THE HALL CASE.

Evening Star, Issue 7161, 15 March 1887, Page 2

THE HALL CASE.

We have been asked to reproduce the reported cases relied on by. codnrfel on dthfer side during the argWtottt ttefirt the Appeal Court in Regina v. Hall, the care cited was the Queen V. Mary Ann Geenng (18491, and the question was whether proof by matter subsequent of felohioua poisoning tyaa admissible. . „ The prisoner, Mary Ann Geering, was indicted at tbo Lewes Summer Assizes, 1849 for the murder of her husband, Richard Geering, in September, 1848, by administering arsenic to him. The prisoner was also charged in three other indictments with the murder of, her son George by arsenic in December. 184$ 5 of another s6n, James, by arsenic, in March, 1849; and of an attempt to murder another son, Benjamin, in April, 1849, by arsenic. In April, 1849, Beniamin stated to the surgeon who attended him that his symptoms were precisely the same as those exhibited by his deceased father and his two brothers, and this statement having been reduced to writing and read over to the prisoner she said “It is qU On the* part of the prosecution evidence was tendered consisting of a medical post mortem analysis of the intestines, of the contents of the stomach, of the heart, etc., of the husband Richard, of James, and of George, and also of a medical analysis of the vomit of Benjamin Geering, who was still alive, with a view to show that arsenic had been taken into the stottiachs of the three latter parties above-mentioned ; that two of them had died of poisonand that the symptoms of all the four parties were the same. Evidence was also that the four parties during their lives lived with the prisoner, and formed part of her family; that she generally made tea for them, cooked their victuals, and distributed the same to them on their leaving the house to go to their work in the morning, Hurst, for the prisoner, objected to the reception of this evidence, on the gronnd that the facts proposed to be proved took place subsequently to the death of the husfand, end that the effect of them was to show that the three Oases Of poisoning were felonious. He conceded that the evidence would have been receivable had the deaths of the three sons taken place previously to the death of the husband, Horn and Greasy , for the prosecution, contended that the evidence was admissible for the purpose of proving, not that the prisoner had feloniously poisoned the deceased ; but that the deceased had in fact died of poison administered by some party ; and secondly, that the evidence was admissible for the purpose of proving that the death of the deceased husband was not accidental. They cited the Queen v. Dossett and the Queen v. Bailey. Pollock, C. B.: lam of opinion that evidence is receivable that the death of the three sons proceeded from the same cause, namely, arsenic. The tendency of such evidence is to prove and to confirm the proof already given, that the death of the husband, whether felonious or not, was occasioned by arsenic. In this view of the case, I think it wholly immaterial whether the deaths of the sons took place before or after the death of the husband. The domestic history of the family during the period that the four deaths occurred is also receivable in evidence toshowthatduring that time arsenic had been taken by four members of it, with a view to enable the jury to determine ns to whether such taking was accidental or not. The evidence is not inadmissible by reason of its having a tendency to prove or to create a suspicion of a subsequent felony. My Brother Alderson concurs with me in thinking that the evidence ought to be received.

The prisoner was convicted. His Lordship took time to consider whether hq ought to reserve the point for tlie consideration of the Judges, under the 11 and 12 Viet. c. 28, and afterwards intimated to the prisoner’s counsel that Alderson 8., and Talfourd J. concurred with him in opinion that the point ought not to be reserved. The prisoner was executed., (To he continued.)

The * Lyttelton Times’ thus comments on the decision of the Appeal Court: —“ The tendency of the inferior Courts in England has been to admit such evidence as that in question in Hall’s case; but unluckily the English Court of Appeal has not stamped its approval on this enlightened view. Thus it was left open to the New Zealand Court to take a conservative view of the law. There was, of course, a sufficiency of cases to support our Judges in their view, and, as they acted strictly within their rights, wo trust that no popular indignation will be wasted on their regretable but perfectly conscientious and justifiable act. With their view that their Court has nothing to do with the popular notion of a failure of justice, we cannot agree. A very grave and solemn duty lies on our Judges to prevent what is a popular —that is, a moral failure of justice. Where, however, the law so hampers Judges as to lead to such failures, the law and not the Court is to be blamed. If ever laymen were justified in complaining of hair-split-ting technicalities, we think they are so justified in this case. The public are told that had Mr Justice Williams admitted the evidence of the attempted wife-murder in order to negative the suggestion of accident in Cain’s case, he would have kept within the law; but that, as he did not make any such limitation, be exceeded it. To expect the non-legal mind to admit that—supposing the evidence to be admissible at all—it mattered why It was admissible, is expecting too much. The layman argues that the facts might properly be laid before the jury, that they were so laid, and that it was only common sense to let the jury draw their own deductions from them. We will go further, and say that the evidence ought to have been admissible in order to fix Cain’s murder on Hall, and that the Court of Appeal might properly have thought so. As the Court has not thought so, we hope that the Legislature will step in without delay, and take care that this rule, at any rate, does not save a scoundrel’s neck. If the failure of justice in the present case results in rousing public interest in the too long neglected question of law reform, then the partial escape of even so great, a malefactor as Thomas Hall will be a cheap price to pay.” The result arrived at by the Court of Appeal is regarded by the public of Timaru as very unsatisfactory, and we are sorry to be obliged to add that observations reflecting adversely on the Court of Appeal have been frequent. In several instances we have heard the old expression about “one law for the rich and another for the poor,” and the general impression is that if Thomas Hall had been some poor wretch without friends he would have been hanged. All this talking appears to us very foolish and very unjust. The most friendless wretch who ever walked the face of the earth would have had his case considered by the Court of Appeal with as much care as Hall’s case was considered, and the result would have been exactly the same. To believe otherwise would be to believe that the New Zealand Judges are a band of rascals who pervert the truth and respecters of persons. In, Hall’s case, as it came before the Court of Appeal, the question of ,the prisoner’s guilt or innocence was not in issue. The Court had to decide the dry technical point whether, at the trial, certain evidence had been properly admitted ; and we may be very sure that the judgment, which on the face of it is an able one, embodies the true opinion of every Judge who occupied a seat on the bench. The case will be cited far beyond the bounds of New Zealand; and those persons who, thoughtlessly let us hope, have attributed unworthy motives to a Bench whose purity and ability are unquestionable, ought at least to be able to understand that the Judges have a keen regard for their professional reputations, and would not willfully make themselves responsible fora decision which would be contemptible in the eyes of English lawyers all over the world. ‘ Timaru Herald.’