MURDER CHARGE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIII, Issue 9900, 20 February 1918, Page 6

MURDER CHARGE

THE GARRICK CASE MOTHER OF GUILD FOUND NOT GUILTY. " Press Association. CHRISTOHUROH, February 19Tho trial of Winifred Garrick on a charge of murdering her son, Donald Lewis Garrick, aged throe, was continued to-day. . Martha Ghillingworth gave evidence that recused hired a room on December 7th, but did not occupy it that night. Isabella Patrick, employed at tne Parcels Office, Cathedral square, said tho accused left an umbrella and suit case on December 7th, returning t c following day for the luggago. Thomas Henry Playford, cabman, who drove tho children to Burns’s house from tho Receiving Home, detailed a conversation with a woman who was anxious to know where he took 'the children. Ho could not Swear that the accused was tho noman. • Detective-Sergeant Gibson gave evidence as to arresting accused, who denied knowledge where the boy was, and declined to inform him where she spent tho previous night. This closed the evidence for the Crown, and tho court was adjourned to enable the jury to visit the scouo or the abandonment of deceased when an infant. Mr O. T. J. Alpers announced that he would call no evidence for tho defence. THE CROWN’S CASE. In opening his address, Mr Raymond, K.C.. Crown Prosecutor, said the fact was clear that an inoffensive baby had been killed, and the jury had to consider who were the persons likely to ho included in tho category of those who might have committed the crime. It was ridiculous to consider any of thoso who resided at Burns’s house. A well-known quotation was ‘‘Show mo tho motive and I will show you tho man.” That might not quite apply in this case, hut it had its significance. The maternal instinct in this case had been shown to be wanting. Tiro mother of tho murdered child had withheld the protection of a mother, and had. abandoned itTho facts had an important bearing in tho present caso as showing in one aspect that the mother was careless whether tho child had lived or died. It might ho said that if the woman, had wished to get rid of the child she would have put it straight into the river, but the reply to that was that she feared to take the first great plunge. Subsequently, he suggested, she became obsessed with the desire to bo rid of her offspring. Mr Raymond wont on to refer to tho significance of accused’s actions in trying to locate the whereabouts of the child, and the fact that sifter her arrest her stock-, in.gs showed that she had been walkftjg' about in her stocking feet. Accused had also given a false account of her movements to different people, . and it . was clear that she was out all night on tho night of the murder. Under all tho circumstances, the jury would have no difficulty in. fixing the responsibility for the crime. PLEA FOR THE DEFENCE.

■Mr Alpers, counsel for accused, in his address to tho jury, spoke of tho responsibility that lay before the jury in considering tho nature of tho evidence, and reminded them that there could bo only one penalty in cass of accused being found guilty—that was the death penalty. Would tho jury be prepared to take that responsibility? Counsel thought not. Ho sketched accused’s 'career, and remarking that the woman had had an unfortunate career. Referring to tho introduction of a previous charge against accused as part of tho Crown evidence, Mr Alpers contended that it was against English law, which had as a basic principle that tho hunted fox should be given a chance. Tho Crown had attempted to show that tho previous abandonment and tho present case . were part of the one transaction. The jury must not consider tho casa from a criminal viewpoint, but from that of motive. The motive of abandonment and that of murder were entirely different. It was common for the mothers of illegitimate children to abandon ‘their offspring, not in the literal sense, but by adoption, by the roadside, or by other means. The motive in all snob cases had to bo-found. Shamo was a chief motive, but that did not apply in tho present case. The child was three years of age, and/ all early distresses had passed away. There was no similarity in motives that would have prompted the abandonment of tho infant and its brutal murder three years later by some person. The circumstances of tho crime of December Sth were entirely circumstantial in regard to accused. The Crown had endeavoured to show tho strength of that evidence. It was his (Mr Alpors’s) duty to disclose its weaknesses, and it would be for His Honour to balance tho two, but, after all that, it was the jury’s job to weigh tho whole. None of the evidence was cogent enough to justify thorn in finding accused guilty. He argued that the Crown had failed to suggest any adequate motive for so foul and revolting a crime, and that there had been no concealment on tho part of accused when accosted by Detective Gibson. Accused had been actuated in her failure to explain where she had spent the previous night by the fact that she had had experience of gaol and of police methods, and these made her cautious. Ho suggested that the fearful force with which tho child had been struck pointed to the murderer being a man. It was possible that the father of the child had determined to abduct it, and when it cried had killed it. Counsel admitted that this did not seem credible, but it seemed to him almost as credible as tbo story put before them by tbo Grown. Looking at tbo evidence, ho ventured to say that the jury could not convict, and concluded by emphasising the point that it was the Crown’s duty not to show that tho accused person was the probable murderer, but was, in fact, the murderer.

Mr Justice Chapman summed up mainly on the question of motive. He said the present was a case of circumstantial evidence, the Crown suggesting that the accused was the one person in the world who had a motive for tlio cxiso.. I£ fca jnrx found a flaw

in that reasoning, tho accused must bo given tho benefit of tho doubt. Tho jury retired at 5.12 p.m.. and returned at 8 p.m. v.Tlh a verdict of not guilty. Tho p 'ieonor was thereupon discharged.