LOUIS CHEMIS.

New Zealand Times, Volume LVII, Issue 2640, 15 October 1895, Page 2

LOUIS CHEMIS.

XSB MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL DISMISSED.

The itfotkta for s now tr&l inf ttfe ctfafc' of the convict Lords Ch'ein'is,.wlio in the year 1889 was convicted in Wollinfffcoto tor the niurder of Thoa. Hackings, farmer, of Kttiwarra,- and is at p'reselii rindorgoinp impfi&nhdont for ,life l ,- was heard in tfeto Court of Appeal yG’storctey. u The Bench cbiieter-ei? of tb’efr Honors tbe 1 Chief Justice, Mr Justice’ Wiliam's, Mr Justice ConoUy and Mr Justice DoiTtfi^toW, Idi' Jelhcbo appeared iu support of, the motion, - allu lot Oully, with whom was Mr At Gray, to oppose oif l/cValf of the Crown. Mr Jellicoo said the had by an Act of the present session a J .?m , ea a suspicion that d miscarriage of justice lidtf token place in of tho convict, and thd At?*' had been passed in order to grant Chotnisia new trial, should tho deem’ that the of application wore to warrant it. He submitted thero vrerd v** suindicttt, upon which the prisoner vrt* . entitled to d tKnr trial:—(l) That tho ovli denoft .tendered a*£ the trial, together with 1 then'in' possess! of the prisoner s counsel, V*h- f owing,to tho illness ot thi;t counsel—who 1 otea » few days subsequently—since obtained, would have ouftgcd the 3ury to have returned a different yeroict. Wmi' regard to tho question of additional evidence, Mr Jelliooe quoted tho case of Fuchs v. the Union Steamship Company (2, Court of Appeal* New Zealand Law Reports, page 11£0- (2) That the evidence at tho trial was obtained by' the unfair practices of two witwesVeS tor tire Crown, viz., Dr Cahill, who i mad(3 ibtf examtaahOn, and ! Detective. I&njanAa.- Mr JeUicoo'admitted . thil’t hb was’uuhblb to ebrAcWd* that tho whom of the. evident oould not' have' 1 foreseen, but the trial W££s an- oiccp fc 4 tiohal one, Jtertjy owing to the lamentable 1 condition of the fVisoucr’s counsel, who went from' tho Court to' proved to be Ms (Veath-bed 1 . „ . , T . Mr JtteMco 'Williams and Mr Jiistrctr Donnistou pointed out that the Legislature h£d limited the jurisaic*Moh of thb Court to seeUon -UG of the Criminal Act, and^aUo 'io the bvidenoo taken at the tiiAb tho trial, as attained in'the Judge’s notes, , Mr JelHcftw said if thht was so, the Act had apparently ft* given the Court sufficient scope.' The Crown, I'd understood, was desirous that every latitude st’crrM bb afforded, hut of course tho cousent of Mr tfi»Uy could not twufor increased jurisdiction, and i* be were lim/fod to tho ono ground quoted, ua would not bo ante' to proceed. After further argum’rttt. .Mr Jelliooe admitted ho could proceed no further under the After a brief consultation, Mr ffifstteo Williams asked Mr Jelliooe if lie desired to endeavour to obtain extended powers trom the Legislature. : ; Mr Jellicloo replied in tho affirmative, i xhairtotiow wadrofusod.