KILLING A BABY

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10562, 13 April 1920, Page 5

KILLING A BABY

CHARGE AGAINST MOTHER COURT OF APPEAL TO INTERPRET JURY'S VERDICT. A case arising out of the killing of an illegitimate child interested the Court of Appeal in Wellington yesterday. It was the manslaughter charge against Hilda Holden, a Whangaroi girl, who at the time the child was born was eighteen years of age. The accused was arraigned the February sitting of the Supreme Court on an indictment charging her with the manslaughter of her illegitimate child. The defence was that- the act which caused the death of the child might have been done by accused when in a state of mental distress and confusion which follows on the birth of a child in such a case. Actual insanity was never suggested. Mr Justice Chapman, who heard the case, told the jury that they wero not to convict prisoner if the injuries to tho child were caused by the mother accidentally, or when she was not conscious that she was doing an injurious ace.

THE PUZZLE VERDICT. After a long retirement the jury rendered a verdict as follows: — "We find that the death of the child was caused by tho mother when she was not in a mental condition to realise the effect of her act."

The questions for the Court of Appeal were: (1) Is this a verdict on which judgment can be entered?

(2) AVhat judgment or result should ensue?

On the bench were the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr Justice Edwards. Mr Justice Cooper, and Mr Justice Chapman. Sir John Salmond, K.C., SolicitorGeneral, represented the Crown, and Mr Allan J. Moody, of Auckland, appeared for the accused. Sir John Salmond intimated that he intended to argue that a verdict of guiltv should bo entered. - Mr Moody contended that there .had been no" criminal intent. It might be that the case should go back for a new trial. He considered it a clear case in which the jury intended to acTlie Chief Justice: They have not said .so. We must presume that the jury said she knew what she was doino- but did not think the act would kill' the .ciiM—that she had no intention to kill. A man might meet another on the street and knock him down. He did not intend to kill him, but he did a wrongful act. i

j SOLICITOR-GENERAL'S OPINION. Sir John Salmond submitted four alternatives for consideration: 1. Is it a verdict of not guilty on the ground of insanity ? 2. Is it a verdict of not guilty? 3. Is it a verdict of guilty of man. .slaughter ? 4. Is it an ambiguous verdict which must result in a new trial? In answer to these alternatives he 1. Insanity was never suggested. 2. It could only he a verdict of not guilty if the jury, had found a verdict which was in law inconsistent with guilt. 3. It was a- verdict of guilty, of manslaughter of the kind defined as killing bv an unlawful act. It did not matter whether she realised the effect of the act or not. Such a verdict might as well have been applied to the assaulting ot a man while drunk. ~,,,-,.■ Finallv Mr Moody appealed that it there was any doubt there should be a new trial. The Chief Justice said the court would take time to consider the case.