DEATH OF INFANT

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 21633, 9 February 1945, Page 4

DEATH OF INFANT

BOTH ACCUSED GUILTY MAN AND WOMAN MANSLAUGHTER VERDICT (P.A.) WELLINGTON, Feb. 9. Verdicts finding each accused guilty of manslaughter, with a strong recommendation to mercy, were returned by the jury in the Supreme Court yesterday after a retirement of over four hours’ in the case in which Herbert Alfred Adams, aged 42, single, a storeman, and Nila Constance Bait, aged 24, married, were jointly charged with the murder on October 17 last of a female infant of Batt. Both were remanded until Monday for sentence. The jury was exempted from further service for two years. Detective G. Hogan, in evidence, said that the accused Batt had made a statement that the baby was born about 4 a.m. on the night of October 10-17. The baby had made no movement, so sire placed it in a suitcase and put it in the, coal-box about 4.30 a.m. During the day she was near the coal-box once or twice, but clid not hear any sound. She took the suitcase from the box, found Adams, and told him what had happened. Adams told her to leave the suitcase with him.

The detective said that when Adams was interviewed, he at first denied all knowledge of the baby or of the suitcase. Adams was then confronted by Baft, who said she had given him the suitcase, stating it contained a miscarriage. Adams then said he had thrown the contents oi the suitcase into the sea and had broken up the suitcase and left it on the roadside.

After the baby’s body was recovered, Adams made another statement in which he said he had understood the suitcase contained . a miscarriage, and had tipped the contents into tne water without looking at it.

Counsel for both accused did not call evidence.

Chief Justice’s Summing Up

In the course of liis summing up, the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myeis, said it was not disputed that the child had been born alive and it had been conclusively proved that death haa been due to drowning. If it had been established to the satisfaction of tne jury that the drowning had occurred in ihe pan of the lavatory where tne child had. been bom the case for the Crown would fall at once in respect of both accused. If there was any reasonable doubt on that point n... male accused should be Igiven the benefit of such doubt. From any point of view it was unlawful for him to have thrown the body into the sea, whether he thought it was alive or dead, but since the evidence had not shown that he had reason to believe the child was alive it seemed that he could not be convicted of murder but that it was competent for him io be convicted of manslaughter. There was ample evidence that the child was alive some 13 hours after birth and, according to the pathologist, it was still alive when it was thrown into the harbour. In that case it was reasonably competent for the jury to line! a verdict of manslaughter against Adams.

“And it is difficult to see that you can do anything else,” added His Honour.

Dealing with the case against the female accused, His Honour said that it might technically be a case ot murder if proved, but, as he haci pointed out to the grand jury, there was a law in England whereby in such a case, where proved, a verdict ot infanticide —an offence created simply for humane motives—might be returned’. Infanticide had realiy tne same effect as manslaughter, but it was not murder and did not have the consequences of murder. “We have never passed a similar Act in New Zealand—l don’t know why—although, as I said the other clay, I personally brought the matter under the notice of the Minister of Justice as far back as 1938,” saicl His Honour. “The matter may still be under consideration so far as 1 know, but nothing has been done.” It seemed to him that, assuming that the jury found the case to be proved, they would be justified in finding a verdict of manslaughter against tne female accused. He suggested that they were in the position on the evidence to say that she was distraught at the time and did not intend to do away with the, child.