THE DRAKE MANSLAUGHTER CASE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CVIII, Issue 12995, 10 December 1902, Page 2

THE DRAKE MANSLAUGHTER CASE.

THE SENTENCE. [Per Press Association.] WELLINGTON, Dec. 9. Mrs Drake, who was found guilty at the previous, criminal sessions of the manslaughter of her child, Dorothy, was to-day sentenced by Mr Justice Edwards to six years’ imprisonment. Evidence wais called as to her character, and counsel pleaded for a light sentence, on the ground that death was caused in an outburst of passion, and not because of malice.

His Honor, in passing sentence, said the accused bad shown most inhuman conduct to her little daughter of seven. Death was the result of repeated blows. The prisoner’s conduct had been such as one would not expect from any woman to any child. The prisoner's position in life might make her punishment heavier than it would be ■to a woman in a lower station of life, but he could not consider that. There must be one law for rich and poor. The prisoner wept bitterly while being sentenced. [From Our Correspondent.] WELLINGTON, Deo. 9.

The sensation, of the day is supplied by the Drake case. At the time of the trial 'nothing else was talked l about in all circles, and feeling ran very high against the unfortunate woman convicted of the manslaughter of her child., This feeling has by no means abated, generally speaking, during the interval while the reserved law point was pending. (Since that was decided by the Court of-Appeal the streets have been discussing the sentence with their wonted freedom. A feeling in fact hais grown up that the sentence would be light, and the jibe about there being one law for the rich and’ another for the poor was occasionally mentioned' as a, probability. Today, however, Mr Justice Edwards has made it impassible. The scene in his court was very impressive. The-defence called many witnesses to chairacter, mostly neighbours, all of whom deposed to the motherly qualities of the convicted woman, and all testified to the well dressed, well nourished appearance of all the children, declaring they had 1 never seen any difference, even, the child who came to such a dreadful end being as well cared for, and apparently as happy and contented as the others. The climax was reached when the (husband went into the box and swore earnestly to the niotberliness of his wife, and spoke of her as always idolising her children and referred 1 to the excellent terns in wliich she was with them all. It was a distressing moment in the crowded court. The place was packed to its utmost capacity, aind principally by women.

Mr Skerrett followed his witnesses with an admirable speech, perfect in both manner and matter'. Nothing did he leave out that told dn his unhappy client’s favour, and everything against her (and there was much) he extenuated with great skill and in earnest tender tones. '

The Judge took his course with firm decision and calm dignity. “ .Prisoner at the bar,” he said (I quote the “ Post's)” verbatim report), “ your counsel has said, and I have no doubt quite truly', that you had no intention to' kill this child, and that you hud no intention of doing if any serious injury. If you had had such an intention, of course, the crime with which you are, changed would nob have been manslaughter; it would have been murder. Nevertheless it is perfectly plain that the most inhuman conduct was shown by you towards this unhappy' child. The evidence of the doctor is that the body' of this little child, seven years of age,, was so covered with bruises that ‘it was scarcely' possible to put a sixpence between them without touching ono or other of the bruises. The death of the child was not the effect of one blow* given in haste, and under some provocation. No single one of the blows inflicted upon that child was sufficient to cans© death, which was the result of repented blows inflicted by you, the child’s mother, over -1 period of some hours. To get the whole- story of what really did happen that fatal afternoon hi plainly impossible; but the evidence of the doctors, and of the child's body, is, unfortunately, all too conclusive ;tliat the conduct shown towards this child was such that one would not expect from any woman to any child, 'and that it was extending over a considerable period of time'. Your counsel has referred to your condition of life, aind the fact that any punishment inflicted upon you must necessarily be greater in its effect upon you than on a woman in. a lower station of life. That, undoubtedly, is true, but it is not a circumstance which I feel it is within my duty to take into consideration in this Court. In such a case as this, .there must be one law for the rich and the ptor. The rich may' suffer more from their more delicate upbringing, but in such a case as.this, the offence is greater than the offence committed by' an ignorant or untrained person.” The prisoner buried her face in her handkerchief, and wept, as his Honor continued : —“I must deal with this case precisely as I should deal with any other case, .whatever the rank of the parties. Tb& jury have recommended you to jnercy, and I shall take that matter into consideration in the sentence I propose to pass upon you, but- the sentence must necessarily be , a severe one. The growing tendency of the Courts lias been, and justly, to punish more severely crimes of violence, more especially' violence against women and children, and less severely crimes against property. Those who give way to their passions, and allow' themselves to use unrestrained violence towards young children, must learn that the punishment which will follow'will be a severe one, and that no considerations whatever can step between them and the punishment which ought justly to be inflicted upon them. The sentence of the Court is that you be imprisoned and kept to hard labour in the common, prison, known as the Terrace Goal, Wellington, for a period of six years.”