POISONED SWEETS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22206, 5 September 1935, Page 10

POISONED SWEETS

ACCUSED INSANE BLACKBALL MURDER CASE INCAPABLE OF PLEADING FINDING OF THE JURY COMMITTAL TO SEACLIFF [by TELEGRAPH —OWN correspondent] GREYMOUTH, Wednesday There was an abrupt ending to the Blackball poisoned chocolate case in the Supreme Court to-day, the trial of the accused, John Skikelthorp Page, a miner, aged 36. occupying little over half an hour, owing to his being declared insane. Page was charged that on September 24, 1934, at Blackball, he Margaret May Smith, and also that on September 22, at Blackball, he attempted to murder Jean Kennedy Clark and Ethel Annie Bragg, or, alternatively, that, with intent to injure or annoy, he attempted to cause them to take poison. Miss Smith died after eating chocolates from a box, which was posted to Misses Clark and Bragg. Evidence was given in the lower Court that the chocolates contained strychnine, and that enough strychnine was found in the body of Miss Smith to cause death. The address on the parcel of chocolates was alleged to be in the writing of accused. Mr. Justice Northcroft presided. Mr. F. A. Kitchingham was Crown Prosecutor, and Mr. A. H. Paterson appeared for accused. Grand Jury's Function In his address to the grand jury His Honor said the evidence consisted very largely, if not entirely, as to the similarity of the handwriting of accused with that on the parcel containing the poisoned chocolates. Handwriting experts were quite definite, and there was other supporting evidence, but the jury would find that the latter was the most important. His Honor warned the grand jury that it was not their function to consider whether or not Page was insane at this moment and therefore in- ; capable of being properly tried, or whether ho was insane at the time of the alleged act. Those were both matters for consideration by the Court after the grand jury had returned its bill. There was a presumption of sanity, and it was the duty of the grand jury to proceed as if Page were sane. Their concern was merely to decide whether there was sufficient evidence to put Page upon his trial. Accused's Condition A true bill was returned by the grand jury, after an hour's retirement. The Crown Prosecutor said that on May 19 accused was admitted to the Seacliff Mental Hospital as a mental defective, and since that time had been under constant observation by the superintendents of Seacliff, Sunnyside and Seaview, all of whom were of the opinion that he was unable to plead on account of insanity. His Honor said that in that case the matter appeared to be covered by section 32 of the Mental Defectives Act, and that a jury should be empanelled to consider the question of Page's ability to plead. A common jury was empanelled, one juror being stood down by the prosecution. Specialists' Evidence Dr. H. J. Hayes, superintendent of Seacliff Mental Hospital and a specialist in diseases of the mind, said he had had the opportunity of observing and forming an opinion on the condition of mind of accused. In witness' opinion he was not capable of undertaking his defence and not fully capable of understanding the effect of pleas of guilty or not guilty. He was not capable of crossexamining witnesses or exercising his right of challenge. Dr. T. W. J. Childs, superintendent of Seaview, and Dr. A. C. McKillop, superintendent of Sunnyside, agreed with the conclusions of Dr. Hayes. His Honor, addressing the jury, stated that section 32 of the Mental Defectives Act provided that if a person were found by a jury to be incapable of pleading, a special order must be made detaining him until such time as his mental condition improved so that he might be tried. The jury were out 17 minutes, and on their return the foreman announced that the jury had found that accused was insane and that he could not plead. His Honor then committed accused to Seacliff Mental Hospital until the pleasure of the Minister of Justice is known. Accused stood quietly in the dock and apparently took little interest in the day's proceedings. ■ LAW IMPERFECT NEED FOR AMENDMENT OPINION OF JUDGE [bt telegraph—OWN correspondent] GREYMOUTH, Wednesday Reference to the possible need for amendment of the law governing the trial of accused persons suffering from mental infirmity was made by Mr. Justice Northcroft in addressing the jury in the Supreme Court at Greymouth to-day. His Honor said he did not think it would be improper for him to say that the present law relating to mental defectives who came up for trial presented certain difficulties which called for consideration and possibly amendment. Amendments had been* made to the law from time to time, but did not quite keep in sight the original purposes of that law. He had discussed the matter with the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, and he understood that the Chief Justice had placed before the appropriate authorities the condition of the law and the necessity for amendment.