THE NASH CASE

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11652, 17 October 1923, Page 7

THE NASH CASE

ANOTHER CHAPTER MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BEFORE THE FULL CO CRT. DECISION RESERVED. The Full Court reserved its decision yesterday with i etc re nee to the motion for a new trial in the Nash case, wherein both the parties had applied for a judicial separation. The jury in the Supreme Court, where the case came before Mr Justice Salmond, gave a verdict in favour of William Horry Nash, the petitioner, and found Maud Marv Naeh, the respondent, guilty of cruelty. The motion was opposed by Mr R. R. Hoggard for the petitioner, while Mr G. Toogood appeared in its support on behalf of Mrs Nash. The court consisted of the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr Justice Hosking, Mr Justice Herdman, Mr Justice Salmond, and Mr Justice Reed. It was contended by counsel that the -jury had been misdirected by the trial judge (Sir John Salmond), and went on to say that Mrs Nash had been provoked at great length by her husband. “NOT BELIEVED.” Mr Justice Herdman declared it waa little use for counsel to go into provocation It was not the issue before the court. Mr Justice Salmond said Mr Toogood could have had an issue on proand he took good care not to ask for it. The trouble with his witnesses, said His Honour, was that the jury did not believe them. . . . One witness declared that he had said lie saw the petitioner jumping on his wife. The jury did not believe him, and I did not believe him. . . . There was ample evidence of provocation, but the jury did not believe them.” HAD A HUMOROUS SIDE. At a later stage, Mr Toogood remarked: “I admit that a squabble of this kind has its humorous side, but, jat the same time, there is an element iof tragedy in it for the woman.” ] Referring to the stamping incident, IMr Justice Salmond said it was not believed by the jury; for one tiling, the woman herself knew nothing of ! this episode, though a witness had deI posed to that fact. Counsel: Young Cobb said so 1 | The Chief Justice: And the woman ! herself did not say so . . . Surely it lis no offence to jump on the couch. 1 . . . . You want to say liav,- that when ’jumping on the couch that the peti- ■ tioner was jumping on the woman. Counsel: That is so. She was on ithe couch. Mr Justice Salmond: It is not in the pleadings, and it is not in the ; ! notes of evidence. . . .• This only ex- ! irts in young Cobb’s evidence, j Mr Justice Herdman : The jury were ' the judges of the credibility of the j witnesses, were they not ? j Counsel: Yes; but I submit that i only one side of the case wa6 put he- I ; fore them. j I SCRATCHED FOR PROTECTION, j I He also observed that when two •' people fought like a pair of Kilkenny I cats, it was essential that one should j scratch in order to protect herself from ' the other. j Mr Toogood said that all through | their married life Nash had taunted j his wife with the fact that she had had an illegitimate child. Mr Justice Salmond: And there, again, it appears as if the jury did not believe it. Mr Iloggard: The evidence was to the contrary 1 Mr Toogood: That was the provocation of the whole thing. . . . The case was only half before the jury. ] They thought they could only find for i one party. After further discussion, the Chief Justice said the court would reserve its decision. Mr Hoggard was not called upon to reply, the court intimating that if they desired to hear him, after they had considered the points raised by the respondent’s counsel, he would be notified accordingly.