THE WINTON MURDER.

Evening Star, Issue 9773, 1 August 1895, Page 2

THE WINTON MURDER.

Why THE APPEAL BAILED.

The judges of the Court of Appeal delivered their considered judgments yesterday. The Chief Justice dealt first with the argument that the evidence objected to was not admissible for the purpose of negativing accident, Localise there was no evidence of accident at the time of its admission, the whole of the evidence pointing to design. His Honor held that the fact that the evidence tendered fortified an already strong case could not be a reason for its exclusion, and this point was not arguable. Dealing with other points, His Honor held the disappearance of the other children was in substance similar to the disappearance of the child with the murder of whom Mrs Dean was charged, and was accounted for by her in the same way—namely, by a statement that it had been adopted by some lady whose name was not given. It was not necessary that other bodies found should he identified with children received by Mrs Dean. The principle was that if there had existed a systematic course under which accused had been in the habit of receiving children on pretence of adopting them, taking a fee quite inadequate for their support except for a very short period, and the disposal of each of them shortly after receiving them in a manner calculated to give rise to grave suspicion, then such a systematic course might be proved as bearing upon the question whether the death of the child in the particular case charged waadesiguecl or accidental. The evidence was much more certainly admissible in the present case than in Makin’s ease, because the proof of the administration of laudanum by accused to a particular child was abundantly clear, Mr Justice Williams cousiJcred Makin’a case more than answered the motion, and that even if that case had not been decided the objection could not. have been sustained. The proof of administration of the drug was clear, and the evidence objected to was clearly admissible to show that it was done with a criminal intention. The case of lUgina v. Hall in no way conflicted with this.

Mr Justice Denniston thought the invalidity of the arguments in suoport of the motion so free from doubt that the Court ought not by calling on counsel for the Crown to suggest any possibility of the question. The evidence was clearly admissible to show accused was a baby farmer, and her motives were not benevolent and philanthropic, as she represented, but sordid and mercenary. Mr Justice Conolly delivered a written judgment concurring. Mr Justice Richmond also concurred, but delivered no judgment, owing to indisposition.

The motion for leave to appeal was there fore unanimously refused.