CONVICTION QUASHED

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7870, 4 August 1911, Page 1

CONVICTION QUASHED

DEATH OF ETHEL BRADLEY NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AGAINST SADLER. The Appeal Court gave its decision yesterday in the case King v. Walter Richard Sadler. Tho court was composed of the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Sir Joshua Williams, and Justices Dennistou, Edwards and Sim. At the hearing counsel wore Air T. W. Stringer, K.C., and Mr T. Ncave for the Crown, and Mr T. G. Russell and Mr M. Donnelly for Sadler. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

The body of Ethel May Bradley was, at 7 o'clock on the morning of Wednesday, February Bth, found in an alley off Cashel street, Christchurch. A postmortem examination made that afternoon showed that death was due to prussic acid poisoning, and that tho young woman was pregnant. Some two or three days later Walter Richard Sadler and Harry’ Alexander Jack were arrested and indicted on a charge of having killed Echel May Bradley, thereby committing

murder. At the trial before Mr Justice Deuniston at Christchurch, application was made on behalf of Jack that the prisoners should be tried separately, as the case against Sadler depended largely on a statement made by him, which would not bo evidence against Jack. This application was granted, and Sadler stood his trial alone on the charge of murder.

There was evidence that Bradley, who was a domestic servant, had been keeping company with Jack for some time, and that she had met him, apparently by appointment, on the night of February 7th'. There can bo no doubt that under seme circumstances not yet satisfactorily explained Bradley went with Jack to Sadler's hairdressing saloon, where Jack was employed. The only evidence other than the lact that the woman went into the shop and was found nearly twelve hours later lying dead in a street near by was contained in a statement made by Sadler to the police on February 21st j and repeated by him at the inquest. The I statement was to the effect that at about I : p.m. ou February 7th Jack had ! brought deceased to the shop, saying she was very ill; that the girl appeared, in fact, to be very ill; that she became so ill that they,‘first Jack and thou Sadler, .went out for whisky; that they returned to the shop and found her dead or dying; that they were too excited and frightened to do anything and walked about the streets until 2 a.m., when they placed the body in a sack and carried it to the place where it was found, taking the sack back to the shop. This story is entirely at variance with another story earlier told by Sadler to the police, and it is also inconsistent with the accounts of witnesses as to Jack's movements during the evening. '

When counsel for tho Crown opened the case he said that he proposed to put tho case against the prisoner as one of manslaughter and not of murder. The Crown theory was that tho girl was brought to tho shop lor the purpose oi having an illegal operation performed by Sadler, and that while she was there Sadler or Jack had administered to her a dose of hydrocyanic acid thinking it was extract of hydrastis. There was no evidence that this latter drug had any active properties likely to commend it to Sadler for the purpose ho used it. There was no evidence of the purchase of poison by the deceased (except strychnine, which was satisfactorily explained) or by either of the prisoners. No evidence was called on behalf of the prisoner, but counsel combated the Crown theory by offering another. It was suggested that the girl came with Jack to the shop for some purpose not necessarily unlawful; that a quarrel occurred there between her and Jack, possibly because Jack refused to marry her; and that she, being desperate on account of her condition, took the prussic acid, which siie had brought with her.

Ihe jury • convicted accused of manslaughter, but sentence was deferred, and his Honor reserved for the Court of Appeal the question whether, on the evidence, there was a case to go to tho jury on the evidence tendered by . the Crown.JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. Tho Appeal Court gave its decision yesterday morning as follows The court is of opinion that tho evidence adduced in this case was insufficient to warrant the jury in finding a verdict of-manslaughter. Tho conviction is therefore quashed. As there is another person to be tried for the same offence, the court considers it expedient to defer stating' the reasons for its decision until the trial referred to is ended.