THE MAREO CASE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 25 March 1936, Page 2

THE MAREO CASE

APPLICATION FOR NEW TRIAL COUNSEL’S SUBMISSIONS SUMMARISED (By Telegraph—Proas Association) WELLINGTON, This. Day. The hearing of the application for a new trial in the Alareo case was resumed in the Court of Appeal. Summarising his submissions under three heads, Mr O’Leary said that all matters prior to the crucial day —that was, the Saturday—which were used to point to Alareo’s guilt came within the third principle that he submitted in opening: that they were equally consistent with his innocence as with his guilt —innocence there including absence of proof of guilt. His second submission ' was that all matters subsequent to the death were brought within his sixth principle based on the case of Rex v. Sadler. The third and final submission was that as to the happening on Saturday, 13th April, the Crown’s case broke down in its crucial point. There was no evidence on which reasonable men could properly find that veronal was administered in a lethal dose by Alareo on that occasion. The Chief Justice: “Or was administered at all?” Air O’Leary added that other reasonable hypotheses of suicide and misadventure could not therefore be excluded and were not excluded. CROWN’S CASE OPENED Air Johnstone, K.C., said it was conceded that the propositions of law stated by Air O’Leary in opening were substantially correct. He desired, however, to refer the Court to the case of the King and Tarrant and the judgment of Mr Justice Ostler, in which it was said that the onus of satisfying the Court that no reasonable men could find the verdict that had been returned, rested on the convicted prisoner. In cases depending upon circumstantial evidence such evidence must always be considered cumulatively. It was not sufficient to point out that these were weak strands in the rope so long as the rope was sound. The Chief Justice: “I do not think Air O’Leary put it that way. He says there are other reasonable hypotheses.” Air Johnstone referred to the case of Clifton and the judgment of the Chief Justice in which it was said that the Court had no right to usurp the function of the jury as to the effect of evidence. In the present case, said Air Johnstone, prisoner called no evidence, so that the application really implied that there was no case to go to the jury. But that was not so. The jury spent anxious hours in deliberation. There was no suggestion of any misdirection on the part of the Judge in his charge to the jury, and it was therefore submitted the Court could only grant a new trial if it was satisfied that the verdict was so unreasonable that no twelve reasonable men could have found, or putting it bluntly, if there had been a miscarriage of justice.

“NO MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE”

“Our submission,” said Mr Johnstone, “will be there has been no miscarriage of justice; that accused was rightly convicted; that there was ample evidence upon which the jury could properly infer his guilt, and that if the jury chose to accept that evidence rather than to accept the submissions on behalf of prisoner, that was not a ground for interference by the Court of Appeal.” Air Johnstone proceeded to review the evidence to show what the jury knew regarding accused and his wife and their relationship. Their married life extended over the brief space of 18 months. Soon after the marriage Mrs Alareo handed over to her husband £4OO. It would seem clear that they were an ill-sorted pair. Alareo after his wife s death almost complained to the police of certain matters concerning his wile. That did not square with what he told Dr Keenan that they had been living happily together. He accused his wife of taking liquor to excess and said she had some kind of internal disorder and had a dread of childbirth. He made other allegations of which there was no proof whatever. The charge of drunkenness was put forward as an excuse for not calling a doctor. The Chief Justice suggested that the effects of a drug might be very like those of intoxication. Air Johnstone: “We submit not. We submit that alcohol has a very characteristic smell and nobody noticed this upon her.” Drunkenness had been put forward to excuse Alareo’s conduct in not sending for a doctor, and as a cause of his wife’s sleep. It had been much stressed that he had not sent for the doctor because he had bought. certain medicine for his wife, but both explanations could not be true, and the juiy were therefore entitled to reject them k The Court adjourned until this morning.

THE QUESTION OF MRS MAREO’S SOBRIETY

This morning Mr Johnstone referred briefly to the point taken by him just before the Court adjourned yesterday. He had shown that the prisoner had on the 15th and 16th April made inconsistent statements- as to why his wife was asleep and as to his failure to send foi a doctor. According to Mareo his wife was a drunkard, but the evid'ence called showed this to be untrue. Nor was it likely she would take drugs so as to cause her death by misadventure or suicide. It was true that a member of the household had better means of observing her way of living than outsiders, but it was improbable that they had all been misled save Eleanor Brownlie, and only on one occasion. Witnesses called by the Crown to speak on this matter were tradesmen; also their neighbour, Mrs Knight, with whom the Mareos were on trims of intimacy. Mrs Knight said she had never seen Mrs Mareo under the influence of drink. A theatrical friend of Mrs Mareo who called at the house on 11th April gave evidence that she went about her ordinary household duties and there was no suggestion of her taking liquor. He and other witnesses who had known her during the periods of rehearsal for the play “The Duchess of Dantzig” said that while it was running they had not seen her under the influence of drink, although the accused said that at this time ho was buying a bottle of brandy for hig wife every day and she consumed the greater portion of it. NO EVIDENCE OF ALCOHOLISM Some weeks before her death Mrs Mareo had gone to Dr. Walton and admitted to him that she had been talcing brandy, but that was because she was worried on account of a certain charge, her husband had made against her. The doctor’s evidence did not disclose that she showed signs of drinking, nor did the ' post mortem examination performed by Dr. Oilmour bring to light any evidence of alcoholism. According to him, the appearances were not consistent with her taking a large quantity of liquor every day. Any explanations or suggestions

made by the prisoner, founded on constant and continued use of alcohol by his I. wife were not proved. On the other ’ hand, the evidence was to the contrary, j Hence it was submitted that the jury Were perfectly justified on the evidence in finding that deceased was substantially a young normal woman. No doubt she was highly strung and of a nervous temperament, and probably on occasions took liquor; but his contention was she emphatically was not the drunken person her husband wanted to make her out.

the taking of drugs The jury also had before them Mareo’s evidence that he never suspected that she took drugs. The Crown had also shown that no drugs or receptacles for drugs were found in the possession of deceased or anywhere amongst her belongings after death. There was no suggestion in the evidence, except a statement by Betty Mareo, who on one occasion saw Mrs Mareo taking some tablets which were probably aspirin or aspros, that deceased took veronal. The Chief Justice asked whether it was not common ground that the jury was entitled to find and did find that death was due to a supply of veronal which prisoner brought into the house? In reply, Mr Johnstone said he was going to submit that was the position. The evidence was clear that she was in good health on Thursday 11th April and quite well the following day excepting in one respect. It was iiot clear whether she went to bed early on Friday night or been in bed all day, but in any event she was in reasonably good health that night. Betty Mareo was at the house and although they passed in the passage neither spoke to the other. According to one witness Mrs Mareo got up and cleared away the tea things which had been used at the time when Betty had gone to Mrs Knight’s place next door to use the ’phone. This was denied by Graham Mareo in evidence, who said she had not cleared the things. Which of these witnesses was to be believed was a question for the jury and they evidently accepted the first version. Three quarrels which had taken place between Mareo and his wife were discussed and mention was made of Mareo’s financial position. He had no regular employment. He had been unemployed for some time and was financially embarrassed. It appeared throughout the evidence that he was addicted to drink and had been taking veronal for insomnia, although he slated he took it on account of a nervous disorder - . MAREO’S LETTER TO HIS DAUGHTER Referring to the letter written by Mareo to Betty Mareo marked, “private, not to be opened unless you hear of my death,” Mr Johnstone said that it was in the nature of a farewell letter which the jury might quite well have concluded was written by a man who might commit suicide or at least by a man who in the affairs of his own life was in a reckless mood. It would appear that the future held little for him and that he Was straightening out matters with his daughter Betty Mareo, for his wife did not matter to him much. The Chief Justice: “I don’t think that is quite correct. Wasn’t she to take part in a new play of his?” Counsel: ‘That was projected, but there is no evidence whatever that she knew about it.”

Continuing, M rJohnstone said on the other hand there was no letter written by Mrs Mareo. There was nothing to indicate that she had a tendency for suicide. It was Irus sh& might have had a fear of pregnancy, but the prisoner himself got her some medicine which she was actually taking. There was, therefore, no urgency about sui. cide and there was no evidence that Mrs Mareo had in her possession any veronal. WHO GAVE THE POISON? Considering the question as to who gave Mrs Mareo the poison, Mr Johnstone submitted there was evidence to go to the jury* that Mareo did. There was evidence that he gave her probably a hundred grains of veronal and there was evidence that three doses of veronal were given to her between Friday night and Monday. The Chief Justice: “When you say there is evidence that doses were given, you mean evidence from which such inferences might be drawn.” Counsel: “Yes.” Furthermore, the jury had evidence that at the crucial time the prisoner himself was in possession of substantial quantities of veronal, that he was taking it night by night for sleeplessness and he knew its effects. The case is proceeding.