FATHER ACQUITTED

Greymouth Evening Star, 8 May 1931, Page 3

FATHER ACQUITTED

DEATH or IMBECILE CHILD

The trial of a father for the murder of his imbecile child opened before Mr. Justice Roche at the Old Rniley, and was stopped by the jury at the close of the evidence for the prosecution, and a verdict of not gujlty was returned. Samuel Dimdbre, 37, a traveller, of Larkhall Estate, Clqpham, pleaded not guilty of the murder of his nine-year-old daughtei’ Ruth. The child was an imbecile, and her condition,, said prosecuting counsel, was so pronounced that instructions were given to the nurse that she was never to be left alone. On January 17, Mrs. Dimdore, the boy and the nurse went out at 3.15 in the afternoon, leaving Dimdore alone in the house with Ruth. There was no direct evidence to show "what happened until half an hour later when Dimdore went to the office of the estate and asked a man named Hollingham to come to his house with him. . At the house Ruth was found m a bath of water, fully dressed except for her shoes and stockings. Artificial respiration was tried in vain. Dimdore said it happened while he was away five minutes getting cigarettes. Mr. Roberts (counsel for prosecution) said there were many remarkable features in the events of that afternoon. One was that at the postmortem examination Dr. Bronte found that the child has died from asphyxia and that there was no sign of drowning. x . , "The case fol- the prosecution IS

this,” said Mr. Roberts. “The death of that imbecile child was not caused accidentally by drowning, but was caused by suffocation, possibly with the blanket removed from the nurse’s bed in the same room. Dhndore may or may not have had a bath. The bath was full, and the, body of the child, then suffocated, was put into it. Dimdore then went to get assistance fiom outside, or someone from outside who could verify his statement that thechild was drowned.” At the close of the evidence for the prosecution, Mr. Birkett submitted that there was no case of murder to go to the jury. • Mr Justice Roche: I think it a very weak case, but I do not know about there being no case. It is circumstantial evidence, with -about six points capable of another explanation. I am prepared to direct the jury that there is not sufficient evidence to convict and leave it to them, but I would pot direct them to return a verdict of pot guilty. Mr. Birkett said he would like to consider this, and the court adjourned for lunch. ’ When the Court resumed, Mr. Birkett said that he had considered the matter carefully, and preferred to put one or two matters to the jury. The jury had power to stop the case, and that was why he was addressing thenK • <«4 1 4 “I want fo submit,” he said, that this is a case where you ought to be satisfied that your duty is to return '■ a verdict of not guilty. ; “Every word of evidence is utterly ; foreign to the idea that you had <x • father willing to do away with his . child. It is usually the afflicted child j who receives an excess of parental j affection.” The jury stopped the case and found ’ Dimdore not guilty. He was accordingly discharged.