THE COURTS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1217, 28 June 1895, Page 18

THE COURTS.

SV2RS DEAN SENTENCED TO DEATH.

By Telegraph. — Press Association. Invercargill, June 20.

This afternoon the Crown Prosecutor addressed the jury in the Dean infant murder ease; and Mr Hanlon followed for the defence, calling no witnesses.

Counsel spoke for about 90 minutes each, and, at the conclusion, His Honor said he would defer his summing-up till the following morning, as he considered that the jury had had a sufficiently trying day.

The Court was crowded during the afternoon.

Invercargill, June 21.

Mr Justice Williams summed up this morning' in the Winton murder ease, and, after half an hour's deliberation, the jury found the prisoner Minnie Dean guilty. When asked whether she had any reason to offer why sentence should not be passed upon her, Mrs Dean rose, and, in a firm, clear voice, said, "No ; I have only to thank Detective McGrath for his kindness to me."

His Honor then assumed the black cap, and passed sentence of death, which the prisoner received with perfect composure. She stepped out of the dock apparently the least concerned woman in the crowded Court.

Invercargill, June 26.

Minnie Dean, now under sentence of death, preserves perfect equanimity, eats heartily, sleeps well, and chats cheerfully with her attendants. The only regret she has expressed is that she has brought disgrace upon her relatives and the children found residing at the Larches.

In concluding his summing up in the Dean case, Mr Justice Williams said: —It has been suggested to you that you could properly find in the present case a verdict of manslaughter—that is, that if you are satisfied that accused caused the death of the child by the negligent administration of opium, but aie not satisfied that the administration was intentional, that you should find her guilty of manslaughter. No doubt if a person administer a poisonous drug and is culpably negligent in the ad-; ministration of it, and it is shown that there was no intention to kill, manslaughter would be a proper verdict. A verdict of manslaughter, however, assumes that the intentions of the person administering the noxious drug are perfectly honest; that the drug, although carefully administered, is administered in good faith and without the slightest intention to do harm. If the evidence, in your opinion, really points to that conclusion, then manslaughter would be a proper verdict, but I warn you, gentlemen, against returning a verdict of manslaughter unless you are satisfied that that conclusion is fully justified by the evidence. Looking at the evidence as it came before the Court, I must say that it seems to me such a verdict would indicate a weak-kneed compromise. It seem-3 to me that the real honest'issue in this case is whether the accused is guilty of intentionally killing the child or is innocent altogether.