HIS CHANCES NARROWED DOWN

NZ Truth, Issue 914, 2 June 1923, Page 7

HIS CHANCES NARROWED DOWN

Cooper's Appeal Dismissed The Verdiojfc Upheld. -"Long and learned argument was heard by- the Qfturt pj:., Appeal (Sir Robert Stout, Sir John Salmond and Mr. Justice Hosking) m "Wellington on Monday when-La^yer^Treadwell made his app^VegirdtrAe the a-dnijsslb'ility of evidence of system, which was adduced m the trl«l 9t the hoopers for murder. Lawyer Hanna was with him. The Crown was- represented by the SoUo4toje-G.eneral (Mr. W. C. MacGregorT K^.), and the Grown Proseciitor (Mr. Macassey).* i^aipryer Treadwell related the facts leading to McLeod's child being taken by Cooper for "adoption." It had never again .been, seen. The Chief Justice: Nor has the person to whom it was' handed oyer? — No. Npr named ?^-No. Counsel urged that the body had not been. identified and there was a strong probability that the body produced was not that of McLeod's child. TJie Chief Justice: But that was a matter that was put to the jury. Counsel harangued the Bench for some time as to the points of doubt, until at. ,le_ngth Sir John Salmond wearily observed (a, characteristic 6bserygllon): "We are not considering the decision of the jury, Hr. Treadwell. What ijs the Legal position? !We are just wlandeiing m a wilderness of facts. Will you forprmjate your' jpjoV p/osj'.tjon? . -.:--■ Co,unsel. then, submitted thajt thejrq was fio" prima facie case to put befbrt? the jury either thjat this was Mcliebd's child Or that either of* the Coopers had muttered it, #n4 m. that oase. t&e evidence of system was not admissible. " Sir. John Salmond; Do you xjriean that It is imppsslb're to admit that until there is a ease, for the jury without lt?—rTea. The Chief Justice: "Why. In that case it wbu,ld" be useless to admit it, for' it wouldn't be wantetj! CbiiQsel urged that there was no prooif that tb§ child jtiad. npt been adopted. The Chief Justice: There was no proof that It had been adopted or that ft had; . ev^n been handed over for adoption. ./ Counsel 'contended that the child was handed oyer to Cooper to give to someone ' Who wanted no publicity. Mr. Juatipe Brisking: That was A MERE REPRESENTATION. There was no evidence of that. Counsel -urged that there was certainly no proof that Ithe child oi McLeod was dead, let alone murdered. Sir John Salmond: Cooper gets a child to have adopted. The child disappeared ahd a body of similar age is dug up m his grounds. Do you say that Is not'a''casq for the jury? Counsel urged that it wasn't on account of the doubt of the identity of the child. The Chief Justice: Well, the jury were satisfied. There is a point you have not ridiculed, and that Is that it was a' naked' child which was found m his garden land the clothes were m his possession. His Honor considered that thfs alone CAUSED A STRONG PRESUMPTION that the child had been murdered. Mr. Justice Hosking: That may have been done froni an economic motive. Sir John Salmond asked Mr. Treadwell what he would have had to say had the Crown shown the three bodies to the jury and asked them to make their own selection as to which was McLeod's child. Mr. Treadwell urged that the differences m the \ times that had elapsed since the respective deaths precluded that The legal aspect of the affair was then' dealt with' exclusively. . After'the case for' the pther side had been put forward the Chief Justice said the application would be refused, but m view of the seriousness of the case a written decision would be given. Tho written decisions were delivered on Wednesday ahd all three Judges concurred as to the admissibility of evidence of^ system once a prima facie case had been established ln the specific charge m regard to the McLeod child, and all three were agreed that such a case had been presented first, "I am qf opinion,'* said the Chief Justice m his Judgment, "that this case Is indistinguishable from the case of "Makin v. th'o Attorney-General' of New South Wales, decided by tho Privy Council, and the ' case of Regina v. Dean, which was deoided by this Court. The full history of the children whoso bodies were found m Dean's case oould not be given m evidence. One skeleton that was found had been burled for many months, and lt could not be said to whom the skeleton belonged. The children were found burled m land which was In the possession of the prisoner Dean. The case of Makln was similar. Prisoner's counsel, m my opinion, failed to point out any distinction m principle between the facts m Makin's case and Dean's case, and by those cases we are bound."