ETHEL BRADLEY'S DEATH.

NZ Truth, Issue 309, 27 May 1911, Page 5

ETHEL BRADLEY'S DEATH.

SADLER CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER.

Released on Bail Pending Appeal.

No Evidence for Defence — Counsels' Addresses to the Jury — Crown Abandon Capital Charge— Dr. Symes' EvidenceAttacked by Lawyer Russell — Justice Denniston Sums Up— Sadler's Conduct— Marked by Cowardice and Fear — The Verdict— The Ground of Appeal— Jack's Case Postponed— PeWing Hearing of Appeal.

The Mystery Lane case was the main topic of conversation m Christchurch last week, the Supreme Court being crowded' during the hearing of the cases. The absence of direct evidence led the defence to refrain from putting Sadler m the box, and other possible evidence for the defence was discarded. Crown Prosecutor Stringer occupied twenty' minutes m his ' address to the jury , and. Mr Russell's address covered an hour and a half. Our readers are familiar with the case for the prosecution.

The only evidence that was new was that of a grocer named Lionel Norman Brown, who, on the fatal evening, was stopping at the Zetland, Arms. About 8.45 that evening he saw Jack pass the hotel with a lady m black, and they both entered Sadler's shop. Both Jack and the woman, the witness declared, came from the river. Five minutes after entering the shop, Jack emerged. No evidence being called for the defence, the Crown Prosecutor addressed the jury.

Mr Stringer dealt with the suggestions made as to the cause of death, and the one relating to the possibility that death was due to some natural cause. The doctor's evidence went to show that there was such a possibility, but there was absolutely no probability of such a thing, and the bare possibility should not influence the jury's decision. It was possible.

SAID COUNSEL IN DERISION, that the woman was not Ethel Bradley at all, and that Jack was right when he said he had not seen the woman that night. In the presence of the deadly poison discovered m the body, it was absurd to suggest any other cause of death. Their task of determining how the woman took that RQison was an extremely difficult one. Counsel put aside the theory of intentional poisoning by Sadler for the vpurpose of killing ; he put it aside as so highly improbable that he considered it not within his province to suggest it to them at all, but he did suggest to them that deceased had the poison administered to her, m ignorance that it was

there, IN ORDER TO PROCURE ABORTION.

It was not unreasonable to assume that a woman, to save herself t from shame, would consent to this course; that Jack had every reason for procuring it. and that Jack and Sadler were on close terms of personal intimacy, and it was reasonable to suppose that Jack appealed to his friend to assist' him, and that the poison had been administered by mistake^ to procure abortion. If they came to # the conclusion that this was the true explantion it would not be put forward by the Crown as a case of murder, but the law would lind it one of manslaughter. It was possible (hat the woman had taken the poison, and, if so, the case for the prosecution failed, and they couldn't convict the accused on this charge. Counsel believed that he had established beyond doubt that the woman met the man Jack that evening near the Zetland about 8.80 p.m., and that they returned and entered Sadler's shop about nine o'clock. This was admitted^ by Sadler himself. After leaving her at the shop he went to the Zetland and engaged m conversation for ten to fifteen minutes before inviting his friends m to have a drink, afterwards remaining and talking with them probably till 9.30 p.m., a fact which it was very important for them to remember. In considering the two theories, they had to take all the surrounding circumstances into consideration. A serious difficulty was the inability of the woman

TO OBTAIN PRUSSIC POISON. The poison might have been m her possession for years, and Was used on this occasion. The .question was, was that a reasonable assumption? He referred to as improbable als 0 the idea that, knowing the woman was ill and m danger of death, Jack had spent half an hour at the hotel m the manner described. Suppose the woman had been found with her throat cut, that Sadler and Jack said they had not seen the woman on the night before, but if evidence were given that Jack and Sadler were seen carrying the body out of the shop, the reasonable supposition would be that the woman had been murdered m the shop. In a case like that, the lying statements made by the prisoner would be regarded as confirmation of his guilt. Mr Russell stated that Sadler was charged on the capital charge, and, if they brought m a verdict of guilty, he w»Hld be liable to be hanged for -tHf*fcrime. It was only on the previous day that counsel became aware that the idea of murder had been thrown overboard. They were asked to believe' that the man, for the purpose of performing an illegal act, had given the woman a mixture, and, unfortunately for her and himself, that he had killed her. The whole thing was based upon assumptions, and to reduce the charge to one of manslaughter -they would have to be satisfied that each one of the assumptions had been proved by testimony m the witnessbox. If one link only m the chain was found to be defective,

THEY MUST ACQUIT THE PRISONER.

Statements made m the box must carry truth m every part, and it was the duty of each juryman before the prisoner could be found guilty, that he should be fully satisfied of the prisoner's guilt, and the proof must be overwhelmingly strong, according to the best authorities. There might be reparation for a man sentenced to imprisonment, but not for a man sent to his grave.

His Honor said that this reasoning applied only to capital punishment. Mr Russell said no doubt, but a man might serve half his life before the truth came out. Dr. Symes conducted the post mortem. He didn't think that the doctor would say anything wrong, but the doctor was always employed by the police, and produced evidence which was

INTENDED TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION. He was constantly m association with the police. Counsel asked the jury if they were albsolutely sure that the woman did not die of a natural cause.

The doctor was with counsel until he saw the drift of the questions, when he spoke of the improbability of an artery degenerating m the brain. It was sufficient for counsel to show that there was not overwhelming evidence that the woman died from the administration of prussic acid, and even though the Crown had abandoned the major . charge, were they satisfied that the Crown had proved this the first link—

WOULD THEY HANG THE MAN on Dr. Symes's evidence? He referred to the significant fact that the Crown had not taken advantage of the highly-qualified medical testimony m New Zealand which might be called m support of Dr. Symes's evidence. They were also asked to as-< sume a lot on the evidence of analyst Bickerton, who had found one-tenth of a grain of prussic acid m the stomach. Bickerton stated that although there was only one-tenth of a grain of prussic acid m the stomach, the other nine-tenths had volatilised , and had escaped from the body

Supposing the jury came to an adverse decision on that point, the question was, how did the prussic acid come to be there ? There were two theories : the first was that

IT WAS SELF- ADMINISTERED, the second that it had been given by Sadler. Counsel suggested a third— that of accident. If, as suggested by his friend, the chemist might have given Sadler prussic acid by mistake, might not the chemist have, also given it to the woman by mistake 7^-The doctor told them that oil of bitter almonds was a deadly form of prussic add and easily obtained ; cyanide of potassium was largely used m photography. Expecting to marry and being enciente, the woman might, m a moment of despair, have procured this poison and had gone to ask Jack if he would marry her. They knew how determined , she was to see him ; how she waited for him ; was it not possible when Jack refused to marry her, that she should, m a rash moment, have taken the poison ? Counsel submitted that the woman could have easily drunk the contents of the phial, even without the knowledge of Jack, a minute before she entered Sadler's shop, and, throwing away the phial, it would be destroyed by the first vehicle that passed. The woman was tramping the streets pretty late that night ; the sickness of pregnancy was upon her ; was it not possible that she should have gone to a chemist to ask for something to relieve her vomiting, and that a mistake had been made, although counsel did not think it probable ? Was it not an explanation based upon the Crown's assumption that a mistake had been made ? His friend said it was a reasonable proposition, and, being such, counsel would adopt it. Supposing the jury were to say that the woman died of prussic acid and that she did not administer it herself,

WHAT WAS THE EVIDENCE AGAINST SADLER?

Some twenty-three witnesses gave evidence, and counsel for the defence had come to the conclusion that they had not mentioned one word upon which it was necessary to crossexamine (the doctor and analyst excepted). Were Sadler charged with al)ortion they could not find against' the man unless there was evidence that the prisoner had handled or bought the abortive agent. One never heard of such a thing being put to a jury m a case of life and death.

THE CASE AGAINST SADLER

WAS ABSOLUTELY BLANK. The suggestion, too, that the chemist had made a mistake m supplying Sadler involved a charge of manslaughter against the chemist, if he existed. Dealing with the actions of Sadler, counsel said that the man's statement before the Coroner was made w:ith the knowledge that <■ it would 'do used as evidence against him. He said that he was m the shop when Jack and the girl entered; that the girl looked as though she was going to take a fit, and he hurried Jack out for some stimulant. Sadler stated that it was about 9.30 p.m. when Jack entered, whilst Brown said it was about nine o'clock. He agreed with his learnrd friend that, if Jack had taken the girl m at nine o'clock and left her there ill or dying, it was absurd he should return to the hotel and converse and drink as he had done. Counsel believed that Brown had made a mistake, and that Jack met the woman when he left the hotel at 930 th =it she had asked him to marry her, and that she had taken the poison and that Jack had taken her into Sadler's shop. Jack had been drinking and

MIGHT HAVE BEEN BRUTAL and used words to the girl which induced her to take the poison. He asked them to realise what a man like Sadler would do if a woman dropped dead m his shop. The first impulse was one of fear, and, iocking up the shop they walked about wondering what on earth to do.

Many people are under the impression that they might get into trouble if sudden death like this took place on their premises. Having decided not to ring up the police, they continued m the deception till one of the two decided to tell the truth. Sadler said to Jack, later, m the hearing of detectives, "I am innocent. --I hope you are," and that statement was repeated on another occasion, being evidence that Sadler was ignorant of the cause of death. Counsel summaried six facts necessary of proof, and which had not been proved by the prosecution, and as the jury should be satisfied of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, they must acquit the accused. How the woman died might be a mystery for all time, but if they were not certain that the Crown's case contained overwhelming evidence of guilt they must bring m a verdict of not gtrilty. THE SUMMING UP. His Honor spoke for an hour and a half, the greater part of the time being occupied m a critical examination of the evidence. The statement made by counsel for the defence that Dr. Symes had always been associated with the police m cases where medical testimony was required to support a conviction was commented upon by his Honor, who said that there was nothing m Dr. Symes's position as a public officer which would prevent him from giving honest and straightforward evidence as a witness, but it was for the jury to judge of that. Reviewing the statements for the defence with regard to the probable cause of death, his Honor emphasised Dr. Symes's belief that the woman had died from prussic acid, and that the healthy conditions of the organs examined defeated the suggestion that the woman had died from a burst artery of the brain, or from embolism, the symptoms of a blood-clogged artery being local paralysis of that particular part of the body. He also reviewed Mr Bickert'on's evidence at length. The analyst stated that from the appearance of the stomach and' the smell he had concluded that the fatal dose- of prussic acid had been administered, and

THAT STATEMENT HAD BEEN UN CHALLENGED .,

Sadler was admittedly present at the death of this woman, and had made two statements, which his Honor traversed. He directed attention to the remarkable fact that there was no evidence of Jack having purchased whisky at the Zetland Hotel to take away with him. He recalled the circumstance that Sadler would pass the spot where the hat was found, whereas Jack lived a little to the north of it, but it was not a matter of importance seeing that Sadler had admitted disposing of the body. If the jury waS| satisfied that the poison was administered by Sadler m the course of an illegal act, it was his duty to tell them that m law that was an act of manslaughter. The Crown held that not only were the two stories of Sadler inconsistent one with the other, but they were inconsistent with admitted facts. The fact that Sadler had, at first told a story which was untrue did not m itself prove his guilt, as it might have been made to shelter Jack, who had been intimate with the girl, and was evidence that Sadler had lost his head ; although, assuming that he was an innocent man, it was

A MOST COWARDLY AND SENSELESS THING to do. His Honor recalled the evi-

donee of Grant and Freeman, who had seen a woman at, about 8.30 p.m. standing near the Zetland Hotel. The evidence of the witness Brown was very important. This woman, whom they might take to be Ethel Bradley, met Jack and went towards the river, and at 8.45 Jack' was seen by Brown, m company with a lady, to pass the Zetland and enter Sadler's shop, Jack returning about five minutes later to the hotel ; also, Jack's still later visit to the hotel before closing time. It was suggested that Brown had made a mistake and that Jack had passed the hotel at 9.30 p.m. His Honor pointed out that the man had given his evidence clearly and smartly, and it was for the jury to say if he had made a mistake.

Mr Russell suggested that there were two meetings between Jack and the woman.

His Honor said that there was no evidence of that, [ and it was for the jury to say if there was "any reason for it. It seemed impossible that Jack should have

LEFT THE WOMAN DYING on the premises and remained at the hotel for the length of time ascribed to him, knowing the alleged condition of the woman. It was important to note that the woman was not staggering when seen by Brown, who was standing opposite the Zetland, a very short distance from Sadler's shop. There was nothing m her demeanor to ' show that she had taken a fatal dose of poison and would expire almost immediately upon entering the sb.op." If the jury was satisfied affirmatively that Sadler's statement was untrue, it was their duty to say why it was untrue. If the woman did not come into the shop m a dying condition, why did he mis state the case ? The case for the prosecution rested, m the first place, on the fact that the woman died from prussic acid, and unless the jury was satisfied on this point, the case was not proved. If. the woman entered Sadler's shop perfectly well Sadler's story was untrue ; if she had taken the poison before en-, tering the shop, it was for them to say how she had passed Brown without betraying the fact that she had taken poison. There was nothing physically to prevent a woman taking poison m this manner if she desired to commit suicide, and there was the suggestion that she had taken it unknown to Jack. The weak point m Sadler's^ story lay m his behavior, which was ■

MARKED BY COWARDICE AND FEAR. To find against accused, the jury must be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the woman took the poison m Sadler's shop, and exclude all other possibilities. There was the allegation of attempted abortion. If an attempted abortion were proved it would be evidence that Jack, who had been walking out with the woman, and was present at the operation, was father of the child. Assuming that this preparation of hydrastis were the abortive agent, there was' no evidence of an active operation. These draughts were usually made up and sent to a woman; then why was this woman taken to the shop to have it administered to her? Drugs, didn't act so potently that the person who administered them should be present while the drug was taking effect. These Potions were somewhat slow m operation, and his Honor couldn't understand why she should go to the shop to take it. The jury must bo satisfied that the woman had died

from prussic acid, that it was taken m Sadler's shop, and that, if taken m the shop, it was taken m a manner as to leave no doubt that it was administered as part of an illegal action by Sadler. They would consider their verdict. '

The foreman asked Dr. Symes if a woman feeling ill could buy sufficient prussic acid to fill a phial such as that seen that morning ?

The doctor said it was improbable that any chemist would sell a fatal dose without inquiry.

Mr Russell said that oil of bitter almonds could be procured

WITHOUT SIGNING THE CHEMIST'S BOOK.

Mr Bickerton, analyst, was recalled, and said that he didn't think the liquid taken was oil of bitter almonds, as there was no indication of oil m the stomach. The amount of prussic acid 1 would be very small compared with the amount of oil of bitter almonds, and, if taken, the oil would be present m the stomach.

His Honor's address occupied an hour and a half, and the jury retired.

A VERDICT OF MANSLAUGHTER.

The jury, after an hour's retirement, returned a verdict of guilty of manslaughter, with a strong recommendation to mercy.

The jury was as follows : — A. Y. Richardson (foreman), C. H. Black, J. Powall, Jas. Close, J. H. Bennett, H. Chillingworth, J. Buchanan, T. H. Rusting, A. W. Riggs, C. J. Rickard, A. V. Kerr, and A. J. Blythe.

Mr Russell made an application, under section 446 of the Criminal Code, for leave to appeal for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence.

The Qrown Prosecutor offered no objection, and his Honor said it was a proper course.

Replying to Mr Russell's application for bail, his Honor said that manslaughter was a bailable offence, but it was a question if bail should be granted to a person convicted of that crime.

Mr Stringer said he would not oppose substantial bail. . The hearing of the case against Jack could not be proceeded with till Sadler's appeal had been disposed of.

RELEASED ON BAIL. The matter of bail was postponed till the following morning, when Messrs Russell (for Sadler), Cassidy (for Jack), and the Crown Prosecutor waited upon Mr Justice Denniston m his private room. Both Sadler and Jack were admitted to bail, a personal surety of £200 being demanded m each case, with two independent sureties of £200 each. Bail was found within an hour, and both men were liberated.

Upon application to Mr Hawkins, Registrar, for the names of the persons who had furnished bail for the liberation of Sadler and Jack, a representative of "Truth" was informed that, at the request of Mr Stringer, Crown Prosecutor, the information should not be supplied to the press.

Jack accompanied his relatives to Dunedin, where he will await developments. Sadler is to report himself once a week to Iho Christchurch

police

There is considerable talk about admitting to Iviil <'<• person found guilty of mtuisliiiiLjitor by a jury.

A marriage annouiiceim/nt : "Anrierson—Blight." Let's trust Mr Anderson's life will not be blighted.