MURDER TRIAL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24607, 15 May 1941, Page 8

MURDER TRIAL

CHARGE AGAINST NEILING CROWN’S CASE CONCLUDED OUTLINE OF DEFENCE (P.A.) WELLINGTON. May 14. Further evidence was heard to-day in the case in which Leonard Neiling, aged 29, is charged in the Supreme Court before the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) and a jury with murdering Mrs Marjory Livingstone Horton at Wellington on or about January 9. 1941. This morning the final medical witness for the Crown, Dr J. O. Mercer, who examined the deceased with Dr P. P. Lynch, described his findings. He said he agreed with Dr Lynch that, if the injuries to the head were taken together, the possibility of a fall as opposed to applied violence could be excluded. To the foreman of the jury, witness said that he thought the injuries to the head would have been sufficient in themselves to have caused death. Arrest of Accused Described

Constable. Needham, of Auckland, described how he located the accused and another man in the public bar of an Auckland hotel on the afternoon of January 23. He asked the accused to accompany him outside the hotel, where he told the accused he was making inquiries for a man named Leonard Neiling, of Wellington. The accused said he was “ Bob Manning, of Onehunga,” and that a barman in the hotel would say that that was his name. The barman told witness he did not know the accused, but had seen him once before in the hotel. Witness left his companion, Constable Goldfinch, to keep a watch on the accused, while he (witness) went to make inquiries. Returning two minutes later, he found the accused and a man with him going down Durham street west. They looked back and saw they were being followed. Witness ran and caught Neiling’s arm, and told him he was satisfied that he (Neiling) was the man they were seeking, and that he was arresting him for a breach of his probation. At the police station he took possession of Neiling’s clothes. Detective Sergeant McLennan said that the accused in reply to a question said he would not make any statement about his movements between noon on January 8 and noon the next day. When told of the allegations against him Neiling had said; " I was net in a taxi, nor at the Carlton Hotel, nor at Oriental Bay with this'woman. I did not know her.” Neiling’s explanation of the bloodstains on his clothing was that he had knocked his hand on a doer in a Newmarket hotel, but he could not give the name of the hotel. The accused later, however, admitted that he had been in a taxi and had gone to the Carlton Hotel to get some beer. The last witness for the Crown was Chief Detective Young, who gave evidence regarding an identification parade held at the Wellington Police Station. . . , Counsel for the accused < intimated that he proposed to call evidence. An Alternative Theory Opening the case for the accused, Mr W. E. Leicester pointed out that for a verdict of guilty to be returned the Crown had to prove that its theory was the only reasonable one on whieff the jury could act. He hoped to show not only that the Crown’s theory was false but, further, that there was an alernative one on which they should act. Even if it were assumed that the accused was the man > who was at Oriental Bay with Mrs Horton, the defence had an alternative theory of how she came by her injuries. The Crown put forward the theory of throttling to account for her death. The alternative theory that evidence wouid bo brought to support was that there was a woman who was under the influence of liquor and who suggested that she and the man with her should find a dark spot in which to drink, While they were there she wanted to vomit and placed her false teeth down and went down to the water. She was wearing high-heeled shoes and the defence suggested that she fell, suffered cuts and broke her jaw. Mr Leicester said that expert medical evidence wculd be brought that would be a counter to the theory that death was caused by throttling and to show also that the facial injuries would not have caused death had Mrs Horton not had degenerated arteries. Evidence was given by Frances Rose Quintal that the accused stayed witn her and her husband at Karehana Bay, Plimmerton, from the evening of January 9 to, January 12 at 9 a.m., when he departed for Auckland. In that time he went about openly. Rober Watt, probation officer at Wellington, said that at the time of the alleged crime the accused was at liberty on probation granted by the Prisons Board. He had been in gaol for breaking and entering. On January 8 end 9 he called at witness’s office for money due to him. Expert evidence was being given by Dr A. E. Park to support Mr Leicester’s contentions when the court rose.