MURDER INDICTMENT.

Manawatu Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 2646, 15 May 1923, Page 5

MURDER INDICTMENT.

COOPERS' TRIAL COMMENCED APPLICATION FOR SEPARATE HEARING REFUSED. JURY'S VISIT TO NEWLANDS. [Per Press Association.j WELLINGTON, Last Night. At the Supreme Court this morning, before Mr. Justice Chapman, the trial was commenced of Daniel Richard Cooper and his wife, Martha Eli?. Cooper, who are jointly charged that, at Newlands, near Johnsonville, on or about October 20 1922, they murdered the infant child of Margaret Mary McLeod and William James Welsh. The prosecution was conducted by Mr. Macassey, Cooper being represented by Mr. Treadwcll, who had with him Mr. Hanna. Mrs. Cooper was represented by Messrs. Wilford and Jackson.

Long before the Court opened a large queue had formed outside in the street, and when His Honor took his seat on the Bench, the building was crowded with interested spectators, the ladies' gallery being thronged equally with the body of the Court. On being charged, both accused pleaded " not guilty," the man in clear firm tones and the woman in a voice scarcely audible. On behalf of Mrs. Cooper, Mr. Wilford made application for severance of her -case from that of her husband. In this connection he asked the Court to consider: (1) Will the cvase of the Crown be prejudiced ■ by such severance; (2) can a female accused secure a fair trial if no such severance takes place; and (3) is it possible that a miscarriage of justice will take place if the two accused are tried together He quoted at length the authorities in support of his application that the charge should be divided and accused be tried separately. He then proceeded to cite particular incidents connected with the case, which, he claimed, might be evidence against Cooper and were not evidence against Mrs. Cooper, but which the jury would have the greatest difliculty in separating when placed before Court in the course of a lengthy trial. Not a 20th part of the evidence which the Crown would submit was evidence, against Mrs. Cooper, but he contended it was rather much to expect ordinary laymen to make a proper assimilation of this complicated evidence. His Honor indicated that he had every faith in the discretion and sense of justice of New Zealand juries. It was quite within Mrs. Cooper's right to place her position before the Court by properly submitted evidence. Continuing, Mr. Wilford maintained that his client was entitled to the fairest trial possible and the case of the Crown would not be prejudiced by the course he proposed. His application was briefly supported by Mr. Treadwcll on behalf of Cooper. Opposing the, application, Mr. Macassey said he did not dispute that the matter was one within the discretion of the Court, but he submitted the accused should not be separated because in Mc/Leod's case at least, there was evidence of complete coordination of action between the accused. Ho reviewed certain portions of the evidence in the lower Court in proof of this and Contended that, unless the Crown was able to submit this position to the jury, the case of the Crown would be seriously prejudiced. His Honor, in ruling upon the application, said the matter was one purely for the discretion of the Court. It was the usual proceeding, when the case of the Crown involved conspiracy, that the persons concerned should be tried together. It had been suggested in this case, that the female prisoner would be prejudiced by this course, but having read the depositions, he was struck by the fact that this was a case remarkably free from that class of evidence, in whidh one of the accused sought to cast the blame on the other. There was nothing of that. As for the items of evidence which reflected on one prisoner and not on the other, that occurred in every case in which two persons were indicted and in that circumstance, it could be trusted to the intelligence of the jury to separate the evidence with a sense of justice and he was satisfied the jury in this case would do this. This was not merely a case of conspiracy, but one of the closest co-ordination of action, in support of which view His Honor quoted from the depositions, to show that Mrs. Cooper had been in most intimate association with MaLeod and her child, and it was last seen in her hands. He had every confidence that the jury would do justice to Mrs. Cooper, and that being so, he would dismiss the application. Some little time was occupied in empanelling the jury, both sides freely exercising the right of challenge. Finally, the 12 " Good men and true" were selected, of whom Mr. David Robbie was chosen foreman.

It was then arranged that the jury should view the locality at Newlands, where the alleged offence was committed before the Court began to hear evidence, and the Court adjourned until the jury returned. The jury returned tt 4.30 p.m. from Newlands, and when the Judge took his seat on the Bench, Mr. Macassey intimated that he did not intend addressing the jury that night, as he felt he would be consulting the convenience of the jury in not doing so. He, therefore, proposed to ask His Honor to adjourn the Court until 10 o'clock to-morrow morning. His Honor concurred in this coxirso. and on the application of Mr. Wilford, jagreed that Mrs. Cooper should be housed at the poiice station during her trial.