Hotel Case; Accused Change Pleas To Guilty

Northern Advocate, 13 February 1940, Page 6

Hotel Case; Accused Change Pleas To Guilty

[Special to ’’’Northern Advocate”l AUCKLAND, This Day. In the Supreme Court yesterday there was an unexpected development in the Station Hotel case. The two accused, a man and a married woman, who were allegedly involved in a suicide pact on November 6, reversed their original pleas of not guilty to admit the charges against them, except the *first count in the case of the man, and on which he was found not guilty. When the hearing began, separate trials to avoid prejudice were granted by the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers). Evidence 'was taken until the luncheon adjournment, immediately after which pleas of guilty were entered with exception of one charge, and the accused were remanded until Thursday for sentence. Accused and Charges The accused were Francis Leonard Laurie, 39, storeman (Mr Trevor HenVy) and Josephine Norton Laycock, 34 (Mr R. S. Burt). - Laurie was charged with aiding and abetting his wife, Beatrice Florence Rita Laurie to commit suicide on November 5, attempting to murder Mrs Laycock, and attempting to commit suicide on November 6. Mrs Laycock was charged with attempting to commit suicide on November 6. There was some delay before the court resumed in the afternoon, and immediately His Honour took his seat on the Bench he intimated that, as the result of his private conversation with counsel earlier in the proceedings, the trial would probably be considerably shortened. Proper Course Mr Henry announced that Laurie desired to reverse his pleas to the second and third counts —attempting to murder Mrs Laycock and attempting to commit suicide. Laurie pleaded guilty to these two charges, and Mr Meredith said he did not intend to tender any further evidence on the first count of aiding and abetting in his wife’s suicide. “A proper course has been taken by both Mr Meredith and Mr Henry,” said His Honour. “When I called them to the bench this morning, I told them that on the case as it appeared to me I would not be prepared to allow the jury to fund Laurie guilty on the first count. “Mr Henry admitted that he was anxious about the first count, and that he did not see how Laurie could possibly hope to succeed on the second and third counts in view of the evidence, and particularly in view of his own statement to the police, in which he admits the offence. Direction to Jury “That is why I say Mr Henry has taken a very proper course in the acL vice he has given to the prisoner,” His Honour continued. “The prisoner has taken a proper course in pleading guilty, and Mr Meredith has taken a proper course in calling no evidence on the first count.” His Honour then directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty on the . first count, and verdicts of guilty on the other two counts. The jury returned verdicts accordingly and Laurie was remanded until Thursday for sentence. When the jury was dismissed, Mrs Laycock was called, and her counsel, Mr Burt, said he had explained to her what had transpired, and she now wished to'* reverse her plea to one of guilty. She pleaded accordingly, and was remanded until Thursday for sentence. In reply to His Honour, Mr Mere-* dith said he saw no objection to bail being renewed in Mrs Laycock’s case, and it was granted.