SPEECHES BY COUNSEL.

Otago Witness, Issue 2811, 26 August 1908, Page 17

SPEECHES BY COUNSEL.

CORNISH ACQUITTED. The trial of Richard Cornish on a charge of manslaughter was concluded at -the Supreme Court- on the 20th. Hie Honor Mr Justice Williams took his seat at 10.30 a.m. THE SUIIJIDTG UP FOR THE CROWN. Mr Frasev, the Crown Prosecutor, in summing up, said it was clear that the Crown must abandon any theory hitherto put forward that the deceased was seen on the morning 1 of the Ist May. He (Sir Fraser) conceived it to be hie plain duty to tell the jury that in face of the evidence of the two witnesses on the point yesterday it would be unsafe for -them to come to tho conclusion that Jlrs Cornish was seen, that morning. At the same time the jury must hot misunderstand him. He did not ca6t the slightest reflection upon the truth-

fulness or the integrity of the witness James in the matter. He no doubt believed he was telling the truth. But there was the possibility that he was mistaken. That must be frankly admitted. But the fact that -that suggestion was abandoned, so far from .weakening the case for the Crown, rather strengthened it, because the .result was that beyond all majiner of doubt the dead woman and the accused spent the time from 11 o'clock on the" 30th April to 2.30 p.m. on the Ist May alone in those two rooms. The jury had the fact that when last seen that night her face betrayed no evidence of having sustained any such injuries as were deposed to by the medical evidence. Comparatively speaking, she went into those two rooms that night a. sound woman. At 2.30 next day she vpa.e found, if the evidence of the medical man on the point was to be believed — did he (ilr- Fraeer) put ifc too strongly when he said battered to' death? _ These two. persons were alone the whole time. Sfo that the fa-ct that she was not eeen that morning 1 outside those two rooms by -no means weakened the case for the Crown. Dr Burnett was the most important witness for the Cro^wn. He was the family doctor, and attended Mrs Cornish, and it could not be suggested that there was any bias on his part save a " natural bias in favour of the accused. Dr Burnett was of good standing in his profession, and counsel for the defence accept ed him 'as the witness of truth. Mr Hanlon: Who said so? Mr Fraser : There are few men more competent than Mr Hanlon in conduebinor defences, and could the jury think that if he had any "misgivings as to the truthfulness of Dr Burnett he would not have called a dozen medical men to contradict him? Yet Dr Burnett's evidence was absolutely uncontradicted on even one point. The jury must accept the facts that Dr Burnett found. What did the doctor say? In effect, that 'the injuries the dead woman received could not have been inflicted by one fall or one blow; that the effects produoed were really the results of a series of violences. The common-sense result of his evidence was that the death was due to violence inflicted by some person other than herself. Who was in a position to inflict that violence? Only one man had the opportunity, and he was the man who stood in the dock. As to the cook, though she was shattered by drink, did ehe emerge from the ordeal of the witness box utterly discredited? Or did she leave the impression that she was telling the truth? He (Mr Fraser) left the jury to say. On the two most important points she now gave the same evidence as she did at the inquest, when she was shielding the accused. Of course, the reason for Taylor having said that ho had not elept downstairs that night was obvious. Had he stated that he had slept downstairs, in that little hack room at the back of the Cornishs' bedroom, would he not have been compelled to acknowledge or to say "Yes" or "No" as to whether he had not heard what was going on. If he had not slept downstairs that night, where had he slept ? That was the question. The girl Knox, whose duty it was to attend to a.ll the rooms in the hotel, did not know, according to her own statement, until dinner time where the barman had slept. If the statements of the girl Knox ware to be believed, three rooms had been occupied upstairs that night. If the evidence of Taylor was to be credited, four roomf> had been occupied. By evidence given they were led to suppose that Taylor had slept upstairs that night instead of in hi« own particular room. This was a coincidence, surely. They had heard the evidence given by Inc witness Knox, whom he might describe as a stolid type of witness. In that evidence she had flatly contradicted the witness Bennett, and even- her own evidence had been of a nature extremely difficult to understand. ' The girl Knox had told them of there having been no quarrels, no friction, no unpleasantness of any sort between accused and his wife. The jury had, however, learned that the evidence given by accused himself at the inquest had been to the contrary, and surely they could believe Cornish's own testimony in 6uch a matter. His evidence had been to the effect that when she (Mr 3 Cornish) j drank they quarrelled. Then there was the evidence of the witness Smith. i\ho had j said that Cornish had pulled his wife away j from his bedroom door, and that he had dragged her away by the 6hou2ders. 'The manner in which the girl Knox had given her testimony was also a matter for their consideration. They must have noticed the evident reluctance with which -she had given evidence to him. It had almost to be dragged from her. They would contrast that with the glib way_ .she reeled off her answers to his learned friend, the counsel for the defence, and he would leave them to draw their own conclusions. Then j there was the barman — a most extraordinary man. He had taken less interest in j the death of this woman than he had dis- j played in th« death of the pig he had

killed the day or co before. This witness I had seen Mrs Cornish, as he himself de- j scribed her, "pretty fit" on the Thursday night. Next- day ehe was found dead, • but this was of no moment to him. . He \ had displayed no interest in the matter, I and in view of this evidence, if true, he j must say that the witness Taylor was the most callous., extraordinary man that had ! ever stepped into that witness box. He j would remind the jury that there was an ! immutable law governing human nature under 6uch circumstances that did not change, and yet this man's evidence went to show that he took absolutely no interest lin such a startling calamity aS -sudden j I death in that small household. The Cro.wni | Prosecutor -went on to say that he - was | afraid that every - unchallenged fact spoke, i and spoke with^ no uncertain voice, pi the guilt of the accused. Let them search the evidence from end to end and they would ] find that almost' everything he did was exactly what a guilty man would have done . under the circumstances. His conduct t squared exactly with that of a. man who I had committed a. crime. JCet them1 examine his statements to the police in-.the, j first place. He was drunk on the Satur- ! day, and it would be wrong to assume , that he did not possess the feelings of an ordinary man. It would also be wrong, | considering the excitement under which . the accused probably laboured, to pin him I down, to " his statements as to the hour ; but -on the Sunday, when he was sober and collected, why did he still affirm that the time at which he found his wife dead j was 10 a.m. ? This was a most sinister . fact. He must have known on that.. Sun- ! day that what he said could not- be true, ■ , and yet he committed himself to it, and when challenged by the police as to why ; he had not sent for the doctor, or communicated with the police sooner, had replied that he did not know. There were two suggestions — the first that accused ha-d slain his wife, not from malice, but with passion, or by the careless exercise of his [ great strength, and that when Tie found that he, had killed her that he flew to , drink. The other suggestion would be ' that advanced by the defence — his learned , friend would excuse him for anticipating. — and this would be that Mrs Cornish, by I her drunken fumbling about the room, had fallen heavily, and brought about her own . death, and that the accused was innocent. \ He would point cut. however, that the 1 injuries could not have been inflicted" at , the saYne time ; the medical evidence i had shown that she was not strong enough to havo da<?hed herself against the passage wall with the the necessary force. The door of the room iin which Cornish lay was open. Cornish, who by his own admission had lain so long. j was wakeful during the morning. Could j they believe that he could have Jain there hearing nothing when his wife was kneck- , ing herself about in this manner not 12ft away? He had picked her up on other occasions: why not on this? Were they going to believe that he lay there inactive while his wifo battered herself to floath? And if so, where was the evidence? It was stated that he heard nothing, and that ho , was not seen till 2.30, when he appeared i fully dressed. Let him rsirry the matter ] a little further. It was his duty to clearly I set before them all the features of the case. j The introduction of the coalscuttle into , j the case had been difficult to understand, j There had been no suggestion that deceased ( had fallen on to it. People <J i-rl not fail on to things they tripped over. Well, say Mr« , Cornish had tripped over it The scuttle ' had been found overturned ju«t inside the sitting-room door, where one of tho curtaiiw ' had been partly pulled down. Deceased, if she had fallen, could not have got her injuries there ; there were no traces there, no blood-stains : but there were traces at the -door of Cornish's room. They had I been told that. Cornish had found her dead, j As she had fallen, so she lav and bled to | death, and there was no evidence of this at the sitting-room door. The girl Knox . had cleaned, up the sitting room at about noon, and had gone to bring the cook, j Why? The Crown Prosecutor then handed the plan of the house to the foreman of the jury. Both Knox and the cook wero at the curtain. There was a certain amount of borrowed light in The passage, and they must have 6een -"he form of their mistress had she been lymg in that passage as described. Deceased was of average height, and had she tripped" over the ! scuttle and fallen full length, her heact would have been within a foot of the bedroom door. Some part of her must have been within sight. .The jury had irrefutablp evidence before it that deceased had bled to death on the' rug, and that rug had been found lying by the side of Cornish's bed. He suggested that this was a casein which the jury must be absolutely convinced. It was their bounden duty to return a verdict of guilty if they were strongly of opinion that the facts of tho J case warranted it, or to add any rider i | they might think fit. He would ask them not to allow themselves to be wrecked on]

/■ • jt ., that xock upon which eo»many~ juries mci disaster. This was the time-honoured plea, " Oh, nobody saw her die or saw the fatal blow struck." Peoples did, -not do these: things in the presence of others. When; indirect evidence pointed • directly to guilt it was their duty to eonViot, apart wofti all outside considerations. The accused/ might be known, and favourably known>-"to some of them. Had they an honest doubt' as to his guilt, then he was entitled to"-6he benefit of that doubt. 'Personally, he v was satisfied that they would entertain no doubt that was not an-honest one. " '• MR HANLON'S-lApiHEIESS. -f Mr Hanlon, in his jgclis9»- to the jur'k which lasted about 'an'Tio'tir-aiKi a-half, -sajd ' that accused was^chargecT wlfch the crime of manslaughter, arid' in* -this, as in evjsrx other case, the accused vpas presumed- So ' be innocent until he 'was proved guilty* and the onus "of proving Ms guilt lay up9a the Crown. "Remember, gentlemen," said 1 . counseb "it is not for the ..accused "ta establish his .innocence. He. is -presumed, jto, /be; lnnocentj and the k onus rests upon 'tho :, Crown" to ' establish ~, beyond" all reasonable 4ouhit:-tfiat ;fche accused "ds^guilty, and \m}esa" x 43ie -Grown: "estabj&ihes 'that onua'tto you/ entire satisfaction," then' -your rx>undeb rl duty -is to find-'a verdict 'b? .acquittaji"-, Before, dealing with the evidence led- tV the Crown he would ask 1 - the jury to eon.- ! eider for a few moments - the- terms:- oa"! which- accused lived with his wife. '■Ifcj was clearly established that she was," an woman hopelessly addicted to drink,* aKdH yet they found that all the evidence went* to. show -that accused -was fond of her|', that he was kind to her, ' thai? he ' waa always considerate with regard; ,tb h'eav; that he helped 'her when in * drink, 'end? tried to hide her failing as much as .'.bef could, and that altogether he treated "her," as a husband should treat, his wife 1 .! There was not one witness who said a.' word to the' contrary. Even the wc-maw I Bennett said the accused and Mrs Cornish lived on remarkably good terms. She had I never heard any disagreement or disEur- ! banco between them at all. So that even that witness, venomous as she was, could' not say but that Cornish had "alwaystreated his wife with kindness and consideration. <( Now," said Mr Hanlon, " you find that this man,, who treated! deceased in the way I have indicated; is | charged with killing and slaying her, and! I what is the evidence upon which that , | charge could be sustained? It is the evidence of some witnesses, which, I submit': to you with every confidence, is weak, I conflicting, and altogether unsatisfactory. | Before I proceed to deal with" the evidence of these witnesses, will you let me say ona * or two things with regard to the wholly, ; extraordinary conduct of the Crown in this case. My friend was kind enough to say. . that I had considerable experience in' criminal cases. To some extent that iatrue, and I have had experience with regard to Crown counsel and their methods. Gentlemen. I have never yet had a case inwhich the Crown have had to traduce every witness called in support of an indictment. That is what has taken place - here. My friend says there is no question' ; that this man slew his wife, and he tellsyou what the evidence is upon which' that charge is based. He starts off by, telling you that Bennett, his pi-'ncipal witness, is a liar — that she is a lying witness, that she is immoral, and that her character w bad. And remember, gentlemen, that is his principal witness. His next' witness is the girl Knox. She is the witness he describes as the stolid witness, the witness from whom he had to drag thing 3, but that when I questioned her she glibly made answer to me. The third witness whose character he traduces is the witness Taylor, and lie ig the cal J lous \vitncss. He never says that these are all witnesses of truth, and, gentlemen,'' that is what most Crown solicitors do. My friend cannot do that. It would never do for his case to say that they ' were truthful. Does it not strike you a» " an extraordinary thing, gentlemen, that you should be asked to bring in a verdict of guilty against a man on a charge that might involve imprisonment for life, when the Crown has to turn Tound and say that these' witnesses are not witnesses of truth? Now for the evidence of Elizabeth Bennett. Tho Crown could not say that she wa3 a witness to be relied upon. The Crown Prosecutor told them that she had her failings, and her evidence was laid before them to draw their own inferences." Mr Hanlon went on to say that the woman Bennett had given a lot of evidence at the inquest, which evidence • was quite consistent with the story of Knox and Taylor, but was quite at variance with the evidence she had now given. He would read the two sets of evidence, that the jury might see her change of front. (Counsel read the evidence.) Somo time after she had given evidence at „ the inquest (which he had read) Cornish suspected her of theft, and communicated with' the police. He made a search of her things, and of the things of the girl Knox. In one of Bennett's hoses— a flour bos— hs

fomA.e, wrapper stowed away in her basket. : In. her blouse he" found a 'gold pin, and *fter that he told her to go. ■ He discharged her. ' She tried to make out that she gave jjotice that Tshe was going to leave, but ■Knox said that -was not true. As soon as timi dismissal took .place she wanted the police rune up, and there could be no question that she -wanted them rung up to give some information in regard to Cornish. "Now," continued - coui.6el, "the Crown Prosecutor says that ifc was a Bkilful thing- ■ for Cornish to dismiss that woman because*" when he found that the woman was becoming loose-lipped, the best thins to ido wae to lay. some information against <har -with regard to theft. But, gentlemen, it is not a question of skill. It is a quesf tiofc of truth. r - She had .the stolen pro'£f f - y ' ' n k*? possession, -,and he discharged . arer for having it in .-her C.possession." Cont tinmng.,Mr : Hanlon said that immediate! v . Bennett was' faced - with ' her offenoe she ■ turned- round and- wanted to-, give, some in- " formation against CornisH ; and. some, weeks ' afterwards , Cornish -was- arrested., for the , manslaughter of his -wife. ' No charge was j """» afra-inet Kirn until this woman xn-.de j net change of front, and told the police ■ "'or*' B^ e ***** not *°k' > fche tru fc n at first, ■but was now prepared to do so. Mr'Fraser:" That is not correct. - ' ■_ Hanlon said Cornish was "not arrested for a fortnight after -the inquest; and that was enough for him. He said that after ehe was discharged Bennett, out of revenge, wanted the police, and, having got Cornish wrested, went into the box and gave evidence against him. After her discharge Bennetts story was that on the morning of the day, at '6.15, when she got up, ehe heard a thumping jroing on in Cornish's Toom, which ceased when she was in the Jtitchen and making a noise with the range. It ceased,- and then the moaning began, and that moaning went on till nearly 11.30. Now, gentlemen," continued counsel for the defence, "ahe heard -that moaning- going on, ehe says, from 6.15 4011.>30, -end- yet she Jiever mentions it to a single soul. Why did she .not call somebody if that story as true? Bennett had said /that she went . -into, the sitting - room and found it swamped with blood. And yet she said > that it was not her business. She did not think anything had ■happened ! Nothing had happened-, though the room was swamped with blood! Was such a-storylikely on the face of it? Could the jury place any xelianoe upon the evidence of a woman who gave one story lat the inquest— a story that did not inculpate Comi6h, — and now, in a spirit of rc.venge. told a story which, if true, meant not merely manslaughter, but murder, for, according to what Mrs Bennett said, Cornish's statement was: 'I said I would murder her, and I have.'" As to the evidence of Dr Burnett, the Crown Proseoutor said that if he (Mr Hanlon) could have contradicted that evidence he would have brought a dozen witnesses to do so. That was a delightful challenge. But there was nothing in it. How could he call a dozen witnesses? Where was he to get them? The body was not lying here now. It might, however, be asked why the Crown did not call in another doctor, when one could have done something. What took place was that the police put the body in the wasWhouse, and there one doctor, withthe assistance of, • a .policeman, . made the post-mortem examination. ~ Now the Crown said that they relied on the evidence of the doctor. Well, his evidence wa6 not of greater value \ to the Crown case than, any of the other evidence. Doctors made mistakes as .well as other people, and many of their mistakes were buried. What did this doctor admit? That it would have been better if there had been another doctor with him, and that another doctor anight have formed a different opinion. In admitting that he gave the whole case away. He (Mr Hanlon) believed that the doctor had said what he bslieved to be fche truth, but he was as likely as any other doctor to make a mistake. He (Mr Hanlon) did not find much fault with the doctor's conclusions, but he had changed his opinion at anyrate with regard to the black eyes. Apparently when he spoke at the inquest he was relying upon the statements of a lying person. However, whatever the doctor said, he had to admit that the fall which caused the wound on the right templo might have and would have caused the injury to "the brain. The .-cook told the doctor that thia woman's face was in the ' same condition the day before as it was 'on the day he made his examina-* tioh ;^ sße swore 'that she' saw Mrs Cornish, wipirii? blood - off her ; Taylor swore that she fell in the waehhouee : and the girl Knox spoke of an abrasion \inder the nose. But the doctor would have the jury believe that this man's punching of the woman Jn the face would cause swelling, but no abrasion of the skin. Could the jury 'believe thai? They did not want a medical man for- such an opinion at all. It *.vas ridiculous^ doctor or no doctor.. Everyone knew that if a nvm punched a woman in the face 6ome abrasion might be expected. The doctor's evidence merely proved that this woman could have got the

injury to the right temple by a fall, and * thafS that came fall would have caused the bruise in the brain which caused death. If the jury found that death resulted from thi6 particular bruise they then had to ask how and by whom this injury was inflicted, and he submitted that this was not shown in the evidence. What was -the residual of the case? The finding of blood on accused's clothing and the statements made by him. The jury Could discard the statement of finding blood' on his clothing. The Crown Prosecutor remarked that he did not rely on that. Mr Hanlon replied that that was not the position before. They had taken this man's trousers and had had them analysed by a doctor.. The statements made by accused were the principal points relied on ( ,by • vhe . Crown. The - first one was as to ! - the time of finding the body, the second \ as to where the body was found, and j the third as to whether, or 'not the ! clothes were taken off deceased either by accused or Bennett. r-It might be that all j the statements made by accused could not j - possibly be 'reconciled . with the truth, but j the jtirj— liacl io ramember this : -thai Oon^j stable Marshall said that on the Friday or Saturday when ihe spoke to accused he wa9 under the influence of drink, and was oonsiderablv excited. On the Sunday he was not under' 1 the influence of drink, and it was only to be expected that the man would be labouring under strong mental excitement. Under those circumstances it was not right to weigh «very statement he made too closely, but he (learned counsel) would show there was nothing in these three points' against accused at all. First, as to the time when the body was found. Accused said that he found it at vlO in the morning, but that he could not have found it then was perfectly plain from the dootqr'e evidence. It must have been about 1.30 in the afternoon when he found it. What did* he do then? He went to ■the kitchen and told Bennett that the missus was dead, and sent for the doctor, an<? afterwards for the police. Then he was charged with giving a wrong statement as to where the body was found. Cornish said that it was found in the passage, and Bennett, the strongest witness against him, told the doctor when he arrived on the scene tlhat the woman was found in the passage, " and, gentlemen, you cannot get past that." The third point was whether accused took off his wife's clothes. He 6a id that Bennett took them off, and she said she did not. But the ,girl Knox swore that Bennett told her that she (Bennett) liad taken the clothes off Mra Cornish, and she was able to show Detective Hunt where the clothing was. All these statements, learned counsel submitted, were perfectly consistent with accused's innocence. There had been no need for him to make any statement ast all. Guilty men often did not. But he told the facts as far as he remembered, and the three points upon which he was challenged counsel had explained. Now, with the evidence of James and Smith they came to another phase of the case. James, a perfectly .respectable witness, was called to prove that on the morning of May 1 Mrs Cornish, abowt 10 o'clock, was alive ,&nd well and sober in the parlour next the bar. James swore that he caw the woman alive at tha,t time, and the inference was that ehe then went ' into the bedroom and was killed by Cornish. • But the Crown now abandoned that position. Why? Because the evidence of the other witness was that he, too, was in the parlour at 10 o'clock, and rhat he did not see Mrs Cornish. /'But," eontinuel counsel, "another witness was <>alled, who, it was understood, would be able to give evidence in the same direction as Mr James. You saw the sort of witness he was; he did not get far; another drunken witness— l do not know where the Crown resurrected him. And he was so drunk that he was ordered to 6tand down as not beins; fit to give evidence at all. But he might have corroborated Mr James, and you might have been induced to believe him, which emphasises the grave danger in which the accused might have been placed by the statement made in good faith by Mr James,, I believe." In concluding, Mr Hanlon said ifc was the duty of the jury, as his Honor would tell them, not to take a little piece of the evidence that might tell for or against the accused. They fflust take the evidence as a whole, weigh it, and ask whether it was straightforward, clear, and undoubted proof of accused's guilt. He asked the jury, Was there undoubted Dropf that this man slew his wife? Suspicion was not enough. They must have proof, -and he could not emphasise that too much. They could not say it looked mighty suspicious. They had to 6ay they were satisfied that the evidence adduced proved beyond all reasonable doubt that this man slew his wife, and he (learned counseQ said the jury could not do anything of the kind. All round there was nothing but lying and changes of front, and on that they were asked to convict this man of the serious crime of manslaughter. If there wa6 a doubt accused was entitled to the benefit of that doubt. But he (learned counsel) went further than that, and taid there was not

a scrap of truthful, reliable evidence upon : which the jury would be justified in findj ing a verdict against accused. If they I weighed the evidence carefully they must ! come to the, conclusion that accused was not guilty. ' There was applause afc the conclusion of Mr Hanlon's address, but it was quickly suppressed. HIS SUMMING-UP. His Honor, in summing up, said that the point tSe jury had to decide was whether the evidence proved that the , deceased came by her death by reason of violence used to her by accused. If so, they must find him guilty. Whether deceased suffered from any constitutional weakness, or whether such constitutional weakness hay- . ing been non-existent the violence inflicted would not by itself have' caused death, must be irmrnateriaj io their decision. , Whether a person upon whom^violence'was inflicted was weakened from other causes or not, and died through that violence, the person committing - such violence was guilty of manslaughter. It had been 6Ugi guested that deceased had keen subject to ! alcoholism, and that such injuries as ehe had received, if inflicted on a healthy person, would not alone have caused death. This did not affect the question of the guilt of the person who inflicted the injuries. The jury had to determine whether deceased had met her death by violence -from accused. It had been stated that accused and his wife lived together on good terms.- Accused, however, had himself stated that they did not always live peaceably together, and that when 6he drank they quarrelled. There was nothing to show that he was unkind to her. Evidence showed that on the evening before her death deceased was noisy and under the influence of drink: that her husband took her away from the door of Alexander Smith's bedroom. Accused had been the last person to see his wife alive. The evidence of several witnesses showed ! that no marks or injuries of any kind were J apparent on deceased the night before hen death, except a slight mark by .the nose. No one else but accused saw" her till after she was dead. At 2.30 the next day aooused had announced to the cook in the kitchen that his wife was dead. Meanwhile the girl K-nox had tidied the sitting room at 11 a.m., and had noticed no one in the sitting room or the passage. Accused found his wife dead in the passage at 2.30. It was for the jury to decide, if the body had been in the passage, whether the girl Knox must not have seen it at 11 a.m. From 10 p.m. on Thursday till 2.30 next day no one but the accused had seen deceased. The woman Bennett, had given a good deal more evidence before the court than "she had done at the inquest on May 5. After the inquest she had been dismissed by the accused. It was very probable therefore that any additional circumstances ©.gainst accused of which she gave further evidence must be looked upon with grave suspicion. There was no suggestion that at the inquest the cook's evidence was hostilely coloured against the accused, or that it differed very materially from that of Knox or the barman. If there had been any bias it had probably been in the opposite direction. It seemed to him (his Honor) that there was a lack of. fulness in the evidence, as if there was something behind, as regarded Knox and Taylor. Deceased had been said to have gone to bed without any visible marks ; she had been found dead next day at 2.30 with a number of injuries. The doctor had stated that he had arrived to find her in bed, warm, and that she appeared to have been dead for about two hours, so that it might be taken that when the girl Knox was in the sitting room at 11 o'clock Mrs Cornish must have been alive, either in the passage or in the bedroom. Ac to the injuries, and the cause of death as disclosed by the post mortem, the bruise behind the ear was immaterial. His Honor then proceeded to read the medical evidence. Proceeding, his Honor said that evidence had been given by the barman that deceased had been in the habit of bleeding at the nose. The evidence of the doctor must not be taken by itself, but all the evidence should be considered as a whole. No one had seen deceased between 10 a.m. and 2.30 p.m. on May 1, except her husband, and during that period she must either have been with her husband, or else lyinp in the passage. Accused's account of the discovery of the body given at the inquest, was of the preateet importance. His Honor then proceeded to review the evidence given by the cook at the inquest., and drew attention to her having first seen the body on the rusr by the bedside. This coincided with the evidence of Lily Knox. who had said that she had seen nothing in the passage at about 11 o'clock. In this respect her evidence fiad been the same at this trial as it had been at the inquest. The cook's statement that accused had told her, "I always said I would murder her, and now I've done it," had not come to light till after

friction had arisen between them, and so this should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. The witness James had stated in evidence that he had seen Mrs Cornish alive about 9 a.m. on May 1. This, his Honor thourfit, must have be-en. a.- mistake, and might be put aside. The jury must carefully examine the facts of the case. If they considered that death' had been caused by violence on tho part of the husband, or if they found that,*this had been a contributing cause, then the accused had been g-uilty of manslaughter. THE VERDICT. The jury retired at- 1.30 p.m. for luncheon and to deliberate, and returned to the court at 3.15 with a verdict of " Not guilty." His Honor : Accused is discharged.