COOPER'S APPEAL

Evening Star, Issue 18288, 30 May 1923, Page 8

COOPER'S APPEAL

COURT’S REASONS FOR DISMISSAL. (Pek United Pjiess Association.] WELLINGTON, May 30. The Court of Appeal this morning delivered written reasons for the dismissal of the application by Daniel Richard Cooper for leave of appeal against his conviction for murder. The Chief Justice, in the course of his judgment, said that ihe main reason given by learned counsel for Cooper in support of tho application was that evidence had ! been admitted with respect to the finding of other bodies than the one in respect of i which Cooper was charged with murder, 1 and that such evidence was not admissible until a prima facie case of murder bad been made out. “lam of opinion,’ continued His Honor, “that, even if that be the law, sufficient evidence has been adduced to v,’arrant the court in admitting the evidence. There was some evidence, first that the child found buried in prisoner’s property was the body of the child of Margaret M'Leod, and it was this child that Cooper was charged with murdering. There was evidence to the effect that the body was that of a child about the age her child was at tnc time of its disappearance. Second, that tho child had been born alive and had lived a few days. Third, that the chill was of dark complexion. Fourth, that the sex was the same. Fifth, that ttie child had been given by M'Leod to Mrs Cooper, who was ; Jiving with the prisoner, and that immej diately after M'Leod was told by Cooper | that the child was given to persons for I its adoption. Thera was evidence that 'M'Leod* had demanded possession of the [child, and could not get any definite answer as to whom it had been given by Cooper, nor where it was, and the child could not be found. Further, there was evidence that the child had not been adopted. All these facts were put forward in the court before evidence as to other children was advanced. I am of opinion (concluded His Honor) that this case is indistinguishable from (he case of Makin v. the Attorney-General of New South Wales, and Regina v. Dean, and the court is bound by the decisions in these cases. In view of these decisions it is clear that the evidence regarding the other bodies found in the ground at Newlands belonging to prisoner was relevant evidence, and tended to sfeow he bad been guiltv of killing babies, the custody of which had been granted to him by their mothers. The jury could rightly infer that from the evidence adduced. Mr Justice Hoskiug, in his judgment, concurred with the Chief Justice that a prima facie case had been made out before the evidence objected to was admitted. Sir John Salmond said that the case was indistinguishable from Makin v. the Attor-ney-General of New South Wales, and that the admission of the evidence objected to was in accordance with the rule laid down by (he Court of Appeal in Regina v. Whitta and Regina v. Smytho. Tho application for leave of appeal was therefore refused.