THE HARLAND CASE

Evening Star, Issue 18120, 9 November 1922, Page 7

THE HARLAND CASE

CHARGE OF COtoIMT OF BIRTH. PREVIOUS ACQUITTAL PLEA DISALLOWED. THE TRIAL PROCEEDS. Stuart Cecil -Harlaud and Heatherbelle Harlahd, who were, acquitted on August 14 last, on a charge of murdering their infant female child, were arraigned in the Supreme Court, this morning before His Honor the Chief Justice (Sir Robert. Stoat) and a jury on two other charges arising out of the same circumstances. Tho counts were: — That on or about June 17, 1922, they -caused, the death of a child.which had not become a- human being in such a manner I,hat thev would lia-vo been guilty of murder if such child had been born. And That- they disposed of the dead body of their child with intent to conceal the fact that such child had been born. When the accused were asked to plead, Mr J. ’B. Chilian said that ho appeared for them, and they both pleaded a special plea of previous acquittal. His Honor: How can you suggest a provious acquittal on tbo second count? b Mr (Julian contended that it was within tho power, of the Crown to have had a proper .amendment made on the previous charge of murder. Hi? Honor asked for an authority as to this contention. Mr Gallon suggested tha,t the authority was section £O3, which dealt with a previous acquittal. Ho admitted he must, satisfy His Honor that the amendment could have been made and would have- boon a, proper amendment. His Honor; You had better do that now ; Mr Gallau said he had put, his plea in writing, and if. read: “Each of the accused pleads previous _ acquittal to each count of the indictment."in that each of the accused was, at the Supreme Court, Dunedin, on August 14 last, given in charge on a trial for'’ murder on the same matter—to wit, identical depositions—as that, on which it is proposed now to give them in charge, and that each of the accused might, on that former trial, if all proper amendments had been made that might, then have been made, have been convicted of all the crimes of which he or she may be convicted on any count in the present indictment; and that each of the accused has. therefore-, already been in the jeopardy in which it, is now proposed again to place them.” Mr Callau said that that was his submission, and he had showed it to the Crown Prosecutor. He thought it would be admitted by the- Crown that the depositions m the previous trial tor murder were- identical wilh the depositions in this trial. His 'Honor: It, does not matter whether they .are the same depositions or not. Mr (Man said he readily admitted that that was not enough. His Honor said that the accused were arrested on a charge of murder, and no other charge- could be added, Mr Gallon admitted that there was no authority, for amending. His Honor; Under our code- there cannot be anything added’ to a charge of murder. There cannot he another crime added, Mr 'Gallon mid- that that was no part of his argument. Hia Honor; If yon say it could not he ■amended, then what do you mean by amendment? Mr Callan: The' amendment, would have taken away the charge of murder and ■substituted’ His Honor; There cannot be any amendment. The- charge of.murder remain?. Mr Callan said ha understood that the Court of Appeal had decided that the powers of amendment were- wide. His Honor said he did not know of any authority for amending -a charge of murder to another crime. There could be no amendment to a- charge of murder. He did not want, to stop learned counsel, but ho wanted to know if he had any authority. Mr Gallau: I cannot show any authority for amending a charge of murder. His Honor: Can you give any authority to show where it has been done in New Zealand? Mr Gallant Not a? regards a murder charge, hut in regard to other crimes. His Honor: We have the special wording of our code, Mr Callan; I say the court could not do it by amendment, but by'substitution. His Honor: You cannot change the charge. Mr Callan said that the only authority lie could refer to was Res v. Skelton. It was not a case of murder. It was a case in which the prisoner was indicted under section 221 of unlawfully using an instrument. His Honor; That is abortion. T know tho case. Tho charges in this case are not- of the same character. Mr Callan: I cannot put any new aspect on the matter to your Honor. His Honor sais that ho had no objection to reserve the point, but. he thought there was nothing in it. Mr Gallan; T will ark your Honor in do that. His Honor said that ho would reserve leave to apply to the Court, of Appeal, He now asked the accused to plead to the indictment. They both pleaded not guilty, CASE FOR THE CROWN. Tho Crown Prosecutor (Mr F. B. Adame), in -opening the -ease, detailed the facts as placed before the jury by him on tho occasion of tho former trial, which were, briefly, to tho effect that the male accuse rl had come from the Bluff and stayed with his wife at the house of Mrs Mould in Dun- ■ das street for the greater part of June. On July 17 a boy named Harris, while playing about near the foot of Park street, found a, parcel in .some bush. Tho boy canted the parcel home, and hi? father found it, to contain the body of a. child, which, tho. Crownthought, had been placed where it had been found witliln -a- day or two of the bo th of the child. If this war, so,_ tho fact that, there were no signs of pntN'-Jation might bo explained that about this time there was j a- cold frosty spell lasting a- month. Two pieces of tape were around the, neck of the body, which was wrapped in a piece of tablecloth, a towel, and' two pieces of brown paper. On one of the pieces of paper was written the name of Mr Lange, a student at Knox College, and by this means it was discovered that Mr Lange had been in the habit of taking his laundry to Mrs Mould’s. He had recognised tho piece of paper a 8 one which ho used for the purpose. Tho other piece of paper was identified as having been previously' used as wrapping for a parcel sent to Mrs Mould’s by Aitken and Sons, tailors. Mrs Mould also recognised a towel as her, end Mrs -Harliwich identified another of tho towels, and said that tha pieoa of tablecloth was similar to tablecloths owned by her as proprietress of tho Hotel Carrington at. Gore, where tho acoued had stayed some time prveiously. The presence of blood stains on certain articles jn the room occupied by the accused at Mrs MouM’g.- and the fact of the female accused’s illness were mentioned by the Grown Prosecutor, who wont, on to say that the accused had -already been acquitted on a, charge, of murder on the point that tho child had not been completely born. The first count of the present indictment, bo said, was laid under section 220 of the Crimes Act, and he naked the, jury to dra-w the inference that the accused, though- not guilty of murder, had dearly killed the child. As to tho second! count, under which the accused were liable to two hard labor, any person who was concerned- in the disposal of a body for the purposes of concealment of birth was liable. There must bo a common design if more ‘than. one person was concerned, but if this existed the action wa< the action of both, or all. "Mr Adams added that one point of law had already been reserved, -and there might be others in the course of the case. He asked them, then, not to -regard tho charges as alternative. but to bring in -a. verdict of guilty in both, so that if & flaw was found in one tha other might stead. Evidence was given by George" La.wrie (building surveyor to the City Council). Neil Harris {the boy who found the parcel), John Harris (hospital attendant at the- Dunedin Hospital and father cf the previous witness), Harold Eraithwaite Lang© (medical student), Alexander Main© -Aitken (of -Messrs Aitken and Sons), Elizabeth Jane Harliwich (proprietress of the Hotel Carrington, Gore).. David Taimock (superintendent of reserves for tho City Corporation and local representative of the Government Meteorological Department), James .Dick (draper), la<-* (Mould (at whoso house tho accused' stayed), Detective Beer (who first interviewed the accused at the Bluff). In addition to the evidence given by him at the previous trial. Detective Boer gave other evidence (disallowed -at the previous triali, stating that he showed- the contents of the suit case to the male accused’ after he had bean brought from Invercargill. Accused, who bad been previously cautioned, asked witness if there 'was a. towel in the hag from the Hotel Carrington-. Ore being told that there was, he eaidi “Then what,

is in the case belongs to usi” Afterwards accused said): “If I say I took the chiral from her end) throw it over fcbe_ wharf, would that clear us of tills charge F’’ Witness had replied that if that was so accused would he at, least guilty of concealment of birth. Accused made no reply. Cross-examined, witness Mid that the reason he had not warned' accused in Invercargill was that lie was merely collecting information for the purposes of the inquest,. It. was only after tho discoveries at Mrs Mould's that it was decided "to charge the accused.

Dr Evans was being cross-examined when this edition' went to press.