DEVELOPMENTS IN ELSIE WALKER CASE

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6992, 19 August 1929, Page 6

DEVELOPMENTS IN ELSIE WALKER CASE

Unusual Course ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER DECLINE TO COMMENT AT PRESENT PROCEDURE ON APPLICATION TO RE-OPEN INQUEST. Special to Times. WELLINGTON, Last Night. Developments in the Elsie Walker case, culminating in the announcement that the Coroner (Mr F. K. Hunt, S.M.) has written to the Crown Prosecutor (Mr V. R. Meredith) suggesting that either a prosecution for perjury should be brought against one of the witnesses who gave evidence at the inquest, or that an application should be made to the Supreme Court for authority to re-open tho inquest, in order that evidence by Mrs Thomason and her sistor, Mrs Langdon, may be heard, are regarded by the AttorneyGeneral (the Hon. T. K. Sidey) as very serious.

Mr Sidey, when interviewed on Saturday, said the developments were of such a serious nature that he was not prepared to make any comment without giving the matter thought. Hft would confer with the Solicitor-General regarding tho course to adopt and he would, he hoped, be in a position to make a statement early this week. Like the Attorney-General, the Minister of Justice (Hon. T. M. Wilford) was reluctant to comment on the latest developments in the case. Mr Wilford said the Attorney-General was in charge of tho Crown Law Office and not tho Minister of Justice. Mr Meredith was an official of the Crown Law Department and therefore, under -the Attorney-General. Therefore, what lib should do was not the concern of the Minister of Justice. It is learned that Mr Hunt’s communication to tho Crown Prosecutor has been forwarded to Wellington and that Mr Meredith is awaiting a reply. The re-opening of an inquest after the Crown’s verdict has been given is uncommon, but is by no means unknown in New Zealand. The last notable instance was that of tho Smallfield insurance case in Hamilton. Halsbury’s "Laws of England,” says: “If a Coroner refuses or neglects to hold an inquest which ought to be held, or if an inquest has been heard by a Coroner and by reason of fraud, rejection of evidence, irregularity of proceedings, insuffieiency of inquiry or otherwise, it is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice that another inquest should be held, the High Court, upon application made by or under the AttorneyGeneral, may order that an inquest, or a new inquest, be held and may order the Coroner to pay such costs of and incidental to tho application as to the Court may seem fit.”