The Hearing Continued

Northern Advocate, 22 July 1938, Page 3

The Hearing Continued

i Special to “Northern Advocate .”l AUCKLAND, This Day. The hearing was continued in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon of a charge of murdering her fivo-months-old daughter, Alma Rosie Evans, at Aratapu. about five miles from Dargaville, on or about April 2. 1538, preferred against Hazel Francos Evans, aged 21. Mr Justice Fair presided. Mr V. R. Meredith appearing for the Crown, and Mr Singer for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. William Evans, labourer, father of the accused, said he and his daughter had not been on the best of terms. It was not because of the baby. Witness had not had any words with, accused before April 3. On that day. accused seemed to be in a bad humour. During the morning witness asked her if she would have a cup of tea and accused told him to mind his own business or get out of it. “I said: ‘lf you’re going to speak to me like that you had better take your baby and get out’,” said witness. Accused said she would go. To Mr Singer, witness said there had been plenty of unpleasantness between himself and accused right through 1937. Witness said he had spoken to accused about the hospital bill, and many times he had complained about the baby crying. He | had told her she would have to get rid of it. Witness said he often thought, from her early years, that accused was not normal. Witness could not remember whether accused had told him she would not get rid of the baby because she had nowhere to put it. Evidence was given by officials of five organisations that they had received letters from a person signing herself “F. Evans.” asking for* her child to be admitted to their institutions. “I Put It In The River.” The evidence of the two detectives ■ concluded the Crown's case. Deteclive Finlay said that on the morning of April 18 he interviewed the ac- - cused girl at the house of her employer. At her invitation he and De- ] tective Miller went into the sittingroom. ' “I said: What did you do with the ' child? She hung her head and said ' in a low voice, T put it in the river’.” 1 Witness said he then warned her 5 and asked if she would write out a ' statement, herself. She agreed and commenced to cry quietly, but ceased almost immediately. He asked her ' if she would rather they wrote the * statement on the typewriter and she j said “yes.” Detective Miller took j down the statement and read it back, I asking if she wished to add anything, j She replied 'no." read it herself and i j endorsed it. ] Mr R, A. Singer, for the accused. ! ' formally objected to r.io production j of the statement. The objection was •noted. Mr Singer said he did not do-1 sire to cross-examine at that stage. | 1 or the circumstances under which it i ■ was made. i Counsel on both sides quoted authorities after which Mr Justice Callan said bis present opinion was that the statement was admissable j .i but he would defer the question until . later. Detective Finlay then read the i statement. Alleged Statement. j In her statement the accused girl : said that things were pretty hard at j; home as her father did not like her | : having the baby. After leaving home j ; following the row with her father. I she decided to get rid of the baby i though she had no idea how ’ she ! would do so. Later in the day she I. decided to put it in the river. At a j • further stage in the statement she | described the manner in which she i put the child in the river, stating that j it was low tide at the time and she j heard the body strike the water after 1 she had thrown it. The night was too dark for her to see. Next day she burned some 07 die clothing under i the copper at her home. !

j To Mr Singer, witness said he had ecme to the conclusion that accused had the mentality of a girl of 14 years. ; In her statements she said that the j birth of the child had not been regis- | tered. though actually she had ,hcri soli registered the birth in January, j Detective Miller gave evidence that i the doll nag on the body was that 1 produced. Witness, corroborated Do- | tec live b inlay .s evidence concerning ’ : the ctatemoiit she had made containI ing an admission of having put the j baby in the river. ■ Cross-examined, . witness said ho 1 had interviewed the man mentioned Iby the accused as the father of her j child. He had admitted misconduct ! two months before the birth of the ! child, but denied paternity. I No Evidence for Defence, j Mr Singer did not submit evidence.! i Counsel’s Addresses. , | Mr Meredith addressed the jury,! j :m d submitted there was no grave pro- 1 j vocation to cause Hie reduction of the j j charge from that of murder. The! condition ol accused's life after the | , birth of the child might account for her action, but it was. in law. no justification, Mr Singer emphasised that the adI verso finding by the jury meant only one penalty, namely the sentence of j death. The law must prove to the i last inch its own rights to lake human j life. Because of the conditions under j which the girl’s statement was made,! counsel asked the jury not to accept I it, and to eliminate it from their do- j liberations. It would have been fairer j for the detectives to have accepted her offer to write her own statement. The Summing-Up. In his summing-up. His Honour informed the jury that accused’s statement to the detectives could be regarded quite properly as admissible evidence. On the point of reduction cl the charge. His Honour said that there was no evidence that accused did not indicate the nature and quality of the offence charged. Although j i he had directed them on the legal 1 aspects, yet the jury had the power I to bring in a verdict of manslaughter 1 it they sc decided. That was a power that juries had, but it should not be emphasised if the evidence proved the I major charge. 1 The jury retired just before the luncheon adjournment. ,