ST. MARTIN’S MYSTERY

Otago Witness, Issue 3714, 19 May 1925, Page 17

ST. MARTIN’S MYSTERY

CHARGE OF MURDER. TRIAL OF MOUAT. (See Illustrated Pages in this Issue.) CHRISTCHURCH, May 12. Frederick Peter Mouat appeared in the Supreme Court this morning charged with having murdered his wife, Ellen Louise Mouat. at St. Martin’s, on or about February 20 last. Long before the doors of the court were opened a crowd of men and women had gathered outside in the rain, and no sooner were the doors thrown open by the police than most of those waiting swarmed in, occupying the gallery. A fair number of the crowd lingered outside, and craned their necks to get a view of Mouat as he was taken from the prisoners’ van to the cells in court. Boxes, blankets, a pillow, several bottles, tins of bones, and other exhibits were placed on the floor of the court in front of the jury box, while a plan of Mouat’s house was shown on the table. Mr A. T. Donnelly (Crown Prosecutor) conducted the case for the Crown, and Mr C. S. Thomas, with Mr Sim, appeared for Mouat. In his address to the Grand Jury, Mr Justice Adams said the case for the Crown was that Mrs Mouat never left the house at any time after her return from Mrs Prosser’s at 10 p.m. on Thursday, February 19, but that she was killed by the accused, and that her body was destroyed by fire. His Honor said it was not necessary for him to do more than indicate generally the nature of tho evidence for the Crown. It was said by the Crown that the whole of Mrs Mouat’s wardrobe had been found in the house, including a costume and other articles which accused described as being worn -by her on tho morning of Friday, February 20, also that her handbag, corsots, shoes, and Artificial teeth were found In the house. Tho inference the jury was asked to draw from this was that she must have left without clothing. Then tho conduct of Mouat was relied on in :i great many particulars. Bearing in mind the fact that Mouat saw his wife on the morning of Friday, February 20, attention would be directed to various facts such as that at 4 o’clock on the same day—seven hours aftor she went away to.meet Mrs Ilardle, and after she had told him that if she did not come back he was to take her hag to the station —he sold part of her jewellery to a pawnbrower in Christchurch, and he did not return homo to sleep that night. He slept at the Rotherfield Hotel, and he also slept there on the three succeeding nights—Saturday, Sunday, and Monday—being about the house In No. 10

Beckford street part of the dpy time. By far the most important part of the case ulleged by the Crown was evidence to show that the accused had fires burning on his section after the disappearance of his wife, and also under the copper and in the fireplace of the dining room, that on the site of these fires had been found a number of bones and pieces of bone, some of which had been identified as human bones, that the bones were smaller than the average size, and that Mrs Mouat was a slight woman. His Honor said that there were other circumsantces in relation to this into which he would not enter, such as the use of Jeyes fluid round the dining room fire. Circumstances in the conduct of Mouat were also put forward as indicating guilt—his conduct in making no inquiry regarding his wife or pursuing no vigorous search, his action in absenting himself from the house on the evening and nights following her disappearance, and his getting out of the way at a later stage. All these questions would have to be inquired into with particularity. From the whole of the evidence his Honor concluded that the jury would have no doubt that the case ought to be sent on to a common jury, and that the accused ought to be put. on his trjai. The Grand Jury returned a true bill. Mr Donnelly, in opening the case for the Crown, pointed out the gravity of the charge. He said that Mouat must be tried on the evidence in court and not on any other evidence. If the jury had any reasonable doubt as to his guilt they should acquit him. Counsel hoped the jury would give the case the same unprejudiced consideration as they would give to any minor and less sensational case. It was necessary to ask them to dismiss from their minds any prejudices, impressions, or opinions formed from gossip, rumour, or what appeared in the newspapers. It was proper to warn them to dismiss from their minds anything they had read in the newsapers because it was a sensational case. The facts had been discussed in the newspapers and reinforced by the camera, and the newspapers had been very active in respet to the case. Counsel was not suggesting that the Christchurch newspapers had been guilty of any impropriety in what they had published. but a great deal had been published, and the jury must be very careful that in no particular should they be swayed or influenced by anything of that nature. It was vital that Mouat should have the same fair trial as would be given to any person charged with a minor offence. The possibility of injury to the fairness of a trial in cases of that nature had become so marked that Parliament might have to consider whether or not, in the interests of fair trials, it should devise some standard of fair nnd proper criticism or reporting, which would define what was fair and proper with greater clearness than could be applied in ihe stress of competition between the newspapers. A large quantity of evidence would be given, including three statements by Mouat. The whole of the evidence was addressed to prove two simple facts on which the Crown based the charge —(1) that Mrs Mouat was dead. (2) that Mouat killed her. Counsel might say at once that there was no direct evidence by an eye-witness as to either fact. Nobody saw Mouat kill Mrs Mouat, and nobody knew how she was killed. Nobody saw her body after she was killed, but the Crown would prove her death at Mouat’s hands by what was called circumstantial evidence, by facts that pointed all one way and made credible only one explanation—namely, that Mrs Mouat was dead and that Mouat killed her. Before coming to details counsel said he could place the case for -the Crown before the jury by a statement which would show how strong the case was. He would show that tho case was proved by substantial evidence of methodical certainty just 'as in a sum of arithmetic. Mr Donnelly then ini a lengthy address went fully into the details of the case on the lines of evidence given in the Magistrate’s Court about threo weeks ago. Mr Donnelly, in concluding hi 9 address, said: “The case is one of tho most extraordinary kind ami character, anil it is difficult to find in the records in any oountry of any time a case with facts similar to this. The contention of the Crown is that Mouat, on the night of Fobruary 19, murdered his wife, that he attempted to get rid of the consequences by destroying nor body, and that he must have burned up the whole or part of it in order to leave behind those bones in tho garden. If you accept that, view and that all tho facts are capable of one explanation and they satisfy you that accused killed this woman, it would bo your duty to convict him of this very .grave charge. The charge is a grave one, and your responsibility is heavy. Your duty is to consider the case -fairly, fully and impartially and to coine to a conclusion as reasonable men, basing* your conclusion on what your experience (ells you to ho true. If you do that your consciences will be easy, and your duty will have been

discharged. If you think there is any rea.sonuoie doubt .s to me uoain oi ■ woman or doubt that her death was caused by Mouat your duty will be to acquit him. J. B. Merrett, Mrs Mouat’s brother, gave evidence similar to that given by him in the lower court. Evidence was also given on the lines of the Magistrate’s Court —evidence of fires having been seen on Mouat’s section and on the premises after Mrs Mouat’s disappearance, of Mouat having pawned trinkets, of bones being found where rubbish fires had been, and of a bag containing woman’s apparel being found at the house of Mrs Mouat, senior, at Purakanui, near Dunedin. A DISORDERLY SCENE. SCRAMBLE FOR SEATS. (From Ou.r Own Correspondent.) CHRISTCHURCH, May 12. An exhibition of. morbid curiosity was given in the Supreme Court this afternoon at the trial of Mouat. The front seats in the court were keenly sought after, and women seemed to be the most curious of those who wished to listen to the trial. Just before his Honor Mr Justice Adams took his seat after the luncheon adjournment there was a most disorderly scene. Thirty-five women of all ages, but mostly of the type which has just said good-bye to flapperdom, made frantic efforts to get a front seat as soon as the door was opened. They rushed up the stairs to the gallery, charged into the back seats like wild things, and clambered over the backs of the seats until they reached the front. The melee was accompanied by excited giggling and noisy chatter. Only one or two men reached the long front seat. Down in the body of the court another batch of women took an interest in the proceedings. There were over 60 women spectators, exclusive of witnesses, who had been ordered out of court. When the morning session had ended a large number of people waited by the side door to see Mouat being taken away for lunch. This show of curiosity was frustrated, however, as the prisoner was provided with his food in a room upstairs. EXAMINATION OF BONES. May 13. There was again a large crowd of spectators when the trial of Frederick Peler Mouat, charged with the murder of his wife, was continued. The accused followed the evidence with keen interest. Lucy Prosser, a married woman who was a neighbour, gave evidence on the lines of her statement in the lower court as to a party at her house on February 19, as to seeing washing on the line at a later Mato, and smoke coming from the dining room fire, and as to Mouat’s statement about going to see if his wife was in Oamaru or Dunedin. Cross-examined, Mrs Prosser said she she did not smell anything like burning flesh from the fire on the section. Witness had seen the clothes which Mrs Mouat had bought while in London. She had not taken these into consideration when ac counting for Mrs Mouat’s clothes on the Saturday. She noticed o cut on Mount’s arm near the wrist. Mrs Mouat had been depressed at times. Detective John Thompson said he searched in Mouat’s garden and found bones in a refuse heap. There were two heaps in the back yard—one larger than the other. lie got the bones from the larger one, and filled several bags with the refuse from that heap. He handed the bones to Professor Gowland, of Dunedin. He received back some unidentified bones. He handed to Professor Gowland other bones given to witness by the Chief Detective. Later the ’police made a further search for bones in the garden, using a sieve in which the soil was throw n, and bones were recovered in that way. In all cases Professor Gowland returned the unidentified bones. Witness found fragments of bone in the dining room fireplace. His Honor sail that he wished to be satisfied for the purposes of his notes as to the bones received back by witness'or. March 31. Witness said that Professor Gowland returned these bones ns unidentified ones, and witness placed them in a box in which they were produced in court. To Mr Donnelly: Part of Mouat’s section was in original grass. When the soil was sieved there were several police working there, but witness took possession of the bones, and they were in his possession until he hnndcd them to Professor (lowland. Two small pieces of dark stuff found on the path were given to the Government Analyst, nnd one later wns given to Dr Pearson. He also gave Dr Pearson blankets and sheets, a piece of linoleum, and a stained pillow. Mr Thomas (for the defence): Were the identified bom found in the dug ground o Witness: 'lhe first bones were out of the largo heap and the others were found in another part of tho section. 1 kepi

them separate. Professor Gowland got some on March IS and the others on March 1 : 0. Exactly where did the hones come from? This is important.—All the pieces except those in the grate were found in the dug part of the section or in the larger heap. The bath with the stains on it is an ordinary porcelain bath ?—Yes, with a roll side. The stains we.re about half-way down on the roll. They were abou£ the size of a grain of rice, but not that shape. Mr Bickerton, the analyst, took them off with a knif-3 on to a piece of paper; they were not sc-raped off. W. P. Gowland, Professor of Anatomy at tho Otago University, gave evidence as to the result of an examination of the bones found in the rubbish heaps in Mouat’s garden. Many of the bones he classed as being definitely human In the course of cross-examination. Mr Thomas asked Professor Gowland if a medical student might have possession of bones? Witness: They usually have a half set. Mr Thomas: A student, might throw away bones in his possession?—Yes, but it is not likelv. Mr Thomas: In a cremation it is possible to burn a body in three or four hours’—Yes, the shortest time in which a body has been burned is one hour. Mr Thomas: Are you able to give the jury any instances of the burning of a body in a grate, without draughts, 13 inches by 11 inches by seven inches?—No, because the dimensions are not given in the quoted cases. Professor Gowland said that skeleton! wero verv difficult to get. Very few students had them, and lie did not think those in possession would throw them away. Medical students usually sold bones they had used as they could gel a good price for them. Mr Donnelly said that he wished to ask Professor Gowland about half a skull found in the district. He would identify it later. His Honor consented to th >. question being asktfd on that condition. Mr Donnelly (handing the skull lo witness) : 'That is the left half of a skull ? Witness: Yes, obviously it has been divided, and a very good section was made. Special knowledge would be required to divide it in this way. Mr Thomas: Does it seem to be a skull used by medical men ? Witness: Markedly so. It is very like a skull 1 used for anatomical work. In respect to surgical operations people with running ears sometimes have to have an operation and there are holes in this skull made with a drill to show where there is an important blood vessel which must be avoided in that operation. Somebody who was quite familiar with these details must have handled this skull Witness continued that he had not had personal experience of a human body that had been burned, but there were eases of destruction of the human body by tire. In an American work by Peterson and Haynes it was slated that the use of tire to destroy the human body in order to remove evidence of crime was va somewhat common occurrence in criminal cases. In one install e cited a man weighing 1601 b was burned experimentally. No piece of bone over two inches long was left. All the pieces that could be identified ai bones could go into a large cigar box. The case was mentioned in a chapter on the destruction of bodies by fire and chemical processes. It was stated that it was a common thing to get tho hard temporal bone, and tho small bones of the hand and feet after tho bodies had been destroyed Dr John Cairney, senior assistant to Professor Gowland at the Otago University, who also examined the bones, said that ns to age all he could say was that they were the bones of an adult over 20 years of age. The consistent smallness of tlie bones pointed to their having belonged to a female. They obviously might have come from one person, and they were consistent with the supposition that they came from a woman of Mrs Mount's height and build. The of the bone* was consistent with their having been fresh when they were burned, but not consistent with their having been fossil or Maori hones. Dr Robert Milligan, bio-chemist at Christchurch Hospital, gave evidence. Ho said that in his work ho tested for blood almost daily. He had received from Detective Thompson a pillow, on a portion of which was a brown test, which he concluded was due <o > blood being present. There were bloodstains on a blanket also, and faint stains on a sheet, which he concluded to he blood. He examined the hath pipe produced. He found positive tests of brood, especially around tne bend. Questioned by Mr Sim for tho defence) a.-; to the date of his registration, witness stated that he qualified in 191 1. He waa at the war afterwards until its conclusion, and wns for four years senior assistant td ihe professor of physiology at Dunedin, He had been bio-chemist ut Christchuroa Hospital sinoe 1923.

Mr Sim: Don’t you think that your experience, so far ns analytical chemistry foes, is rather short?—l don’t think so. dcf not deal with analytical chemistry in the broad sense. Witness added that was a biochemist dealing with the secretions of the human body, and he believed he was the only bio chemist employed in the dominion. The stains on the bath pipe were definitely blood, but he could not say whether they, or the other bloodstains, were from human blood. CASE BOR THE CROWN CLOSED. May 14. In the Mouat case the evidence this morning was largely as to the accused’s movements and statements after February 20—the date of his wife’s disappearance Two lengthy statements made by the accused to the police which were tele graphed during the lower court proceed mgs were handed in, and evidence was fiven of the frequency of fires in Mouat’s ouse and in the garden soon after the date of Mrs Mouat’s disappearance. James Heeney, barman at Rotherfield Hotel, gave evidence that he had known the Mouats for 15 months, and had stayed for some time with accused. He produced a letter received on February 25 from Mouat at Purakanui, which said: “Nell not here; Granny is worried aboe.t her. I don't know where to go. Granny has been out at the back door dozens of times looking.” Cross-examined, witness said the Mouats as far as he knew were a happy couple. Mouat was a gentleman. Ada Beere, who resided next door to the Mouats, said that Mouat asked witness and her husband if they smelt anything, as he was burning old potatoes. There was a smell of rubbish burning. She saw very thick smoke coming from the dining room, and she thought the room was on fire. Mr Thomas: Why didn’t you tell the court that before?—l don’t think the question was put to me. I suppose the fact of the heavy smoke was present in your mind, but the only reason you didn't say so was because you Weren’t asked?—Yes. What colour was the smoke?—Thick dark smoke. Would it be correct to say that it was bluish grov?—lt would not be. Chief Detective Gibson, in his evidence, detailed the arrest of Mouat on March 9 in the St. Martin’s brick kiln. On the way to the station witness said: “You look in a bad way, Mr Mouat.” His clothes were dirty, and he had tomatoes and apples in his pockets. . Mouat said: “Yes, I have been wandering about the hills for a week, looking behind every bush and rock for her.” Witness said : “What? Do vou think she is dead?” Mouat said: “Well, when she was leaving me that morning I heard her say she had a good mind to do away with herself.” The Chief Detective also gave particulars of the digging operations in Mouat’s garden. From one heap of ashes the police took away five sacks of material. Another heap of ashes was levelled out by the police when they were searching for a body in the first instance. The first bone discovered was got in the ashes. When it was identified as human the Bearch was continued, and the soil was put through a sieve. Alexander Augustus Bickerton, Government analyst, said he got 'two positive reactions for blood in tests of pieces of blanket. Coloured matter which he found in the middle of a stain on .the edge of the bath gave a reaction for blood. A sample examined under a microscope with a low power had the appearance of a piece of flesh, and with a higher power skin scales were seen. When there was no stain there was no reaction, but where there was a stain there was a positive reaction of blood. Mr Sim (for the defence): You don’t say it was human blood?—Oh no, I didn't test for human blood. You know Dr Pearson did?—lt was his business to test for blood. Can you say how old the stains were?— On the blanket before it was washed it was fairly fresh blood, or it would not have run as it did. What do you mean by “fairly fresh”? When the articles were dipped in watqy the stains must have been fairly fresh. The chances are that when the articles were washed the blood was fresh. 1 don’t know when the article was washed You don’t pretend to say what quantity of blood there was?—l should say it came from a capillary or slight bleeding of the nose or cut on the hand. It did not come irom a fatal wound. There must have been a teaspoonful. It is not sufficient to show that it was murder. Mr Sim: You say you found haeminciystals in the pipe. Are they not the only thing which every expert agrees is conclusive as to the presence of blood? Tea. You know that Dr Milligan failed with haemin-crystals in respect to the pipe?— I don’t know that he looked for them very Ynuch. Mr Sim: Why?—l suppose lie was satisfied with the knowledge that he had got ritive tests, and he was entitled to that on his qualifications. Mr Sim: You have told us just now that the haemin-crystal test was the inly conclusive one?—A man may say a mutton chop is a mutton chop because he is a butcher. We are in the same position. We say there nrc positive tests for blood. 1 have an advantage over Dr Milligan, as I tested for substances that would produce the same kind of stain, and found them absent. I tested for tannin, opaline dye colouring, permanganate of potash, and fruit juices. Witness proceeded to enumerate the tests he had made in the present case, with a view to eliminating other possible causes of such a stain, with negative reiults. The Guiacun teat wts not eoneidered by all experts to be conclusive, but he had complied with all the requirements of experts to make it correct. He did not believe that there was a modern man who would say that the Guiacun test made with proper precautions was pot reliable.

In reply to" his Honor, Mr Sim said he did not say whether one authority or another was right, but the c«xse for the defence was that the authorities w?re in a state of chaos. At the close of Mr Bickerton’s crossexamination three other witnesses gave evidence, and the case for the Crown was closed. The jurymen engaged in the trial visited Mouat’s bungalow in Beckford Toad this afternoon at the request of Mr Thomas, leading counsel for the defence, and saw for tnemselvcs the ash-heap in which human bones were found, and also the dining room fireplace which has taken an important part in the case for the prosecution. Special interest centred in the dining room, where the fireplace came in for some attention. Measurements were taken, and the registrar of the Supreme Court explained various points of interest attaching to different rooms. Some time was spent in the grounds round the bungalow, where the jurymen made observations for themselves. THE JIIIIYDIS AGREES. May 15. The Mouat murder trial was resumed this morning. Detective Thompson (recalled) said that since Mouat’s arrest on March 9 part of the section at Beckford street had been dug over by someone. The heap where the os magnum bone had been found had been disturbed, and a large animal bone was now lying there. No evidence was called for the defence. CROWN PROSECUTOR’S ADDRESS. In his address to the jury, Mr Donnelly (Crown Prosecutor) said regarding the bones that there was no successful way of challenging the evidence of Professor Gowtand and Dr Cairney that the bones were human. Neither Dr Gowland nor Dr L'airney had been cross-examined on this aspect of the case. The jury would have little doubt that the doctor’s evidence should be accepted. The defence must propound ;ome theory, for uie extraordinary discovery of human bones in the garden of the bungalow. They belonged to the same person, and none was from the trunk or from the larger part of the limbs. They were all from edges of the body. They could not be accounted for by the theory that they had been thrown there by a medical student. Mouat was seen hanging the stained sheets and blanket on the line. He must have washed them. His object was to get rid of the stains that experts said were blood stains. Dr Milligan had oeen attacked by counsel for the defence, but he was the one man in New Zealand who was qualified to give an opinion, on the stains, in the same way as Dr Gowland and Dr Cairney were best qualified to speak as to the bones being human ones. Mr Bickerton, the analyst, had been attacked with the same lack of success. The action of Mouat to disappearing after he had been asked by the chief detective to return to the office was commented on by Mr Donnelly. He asked what, inference should be drawn from this. Was it consistent with the story told by the aocuscd or with the theory of the Crown? They had to bear in mind the belated suggestion of suicide, which the accused had made on the day of his arrest. Why had he told that last lie? What possible object could he have had except that he knew on March 9 that the police had discovered what he had done, and so he had made the last hopeless suggestion of suicide. The Crown had established that a woman’s body had been destroyed, and that the bones must be her’s. How the. crime was carried out it was difficult to say, because the crime had been carried out with such skill. Burning must have been one of the methods. It was significant that the bones discovered came from the edges of the body, and none of the large bones were available. It was possible that some of these might be accounted for by having been destroyed to such an extent that they had lost their human identity altogether. Among the boxes of crushed and broken material there might be other parts of human bones, which had lost their identity. ’No one in this country had a first-hand knowledge of how a human body could be destroyed by fire. Certain periods were pointed out in text books and the information given was that although the destruction of a body by fire was not altogether an unusual thing in cases of murder in which the criminals were, sufficiently determined and callous to make the attempt, usually something was left behind, just as in this case, to indicate what had happened. The authorities showed that the body of a man of 169 pounds’ weight was burned on a wood fire, and that all the pieces of bone went into a cigar box and that no pieces of bone were left over two inches in length. Although tho Crown could not. say precisely how tho crime was committed, the theory was that the body must have been destroyed and that the parts left had been through fire. The case was an extraordinary one, and was one of considerable difficulty. The Crown’s case wo3 that Mouat committed the crinio callously, but was tripoed up in his offorts to destroy tho evidence. CASE FOR TI*E DEFENCE. Mr C. S. Thomas addressed the jury. At the outset ho said that he wished to thank the Crown Prosecutor for the way in which he had conducted the Crown’s case and for his utmost fairness. He had helped in many ways and had fceoji frank and candid in all things. Direct evidence was stronger than circumstantial evidence. Mr Thomas went on to say that tho Crown had no direct evidence in the present case. There were two avenues of mistake in circumstan tial evidence—that the witness was mistaken in what he thought he saw, and that fie drew wrong deductions from what he saw. Theta was no evidence that Mrs Mouat w’a9 diad and no direct evidence that she was murdered. A chain of circumstanctial evidence t had been forged around Mouat. A chain was as strong as its weakest link and no stronger. Tho bones obviously were human bones, but they took the case not one inch further. It could not be said that because they were found in the section: tliero had been a murder. The place where they were found was a rubbish dump. Tho ago of the bones could not be stated by the experts further than that they were not fossil Moari bones. Kapaki was close to tho scene, and at Kaiapoi there ha<j been another largo Maori Sa. The bones might have been left bv laoris who in the late sixties or seventies trekked between the two pas and fished for eels in the Heathcote River, which ran near Mouat’s section. The half skull was found in a rubbish dump on a section

in the district. Could it be said the bones in court, like the skull, had belonged to a medical student? One witness had said the section wag full of bones. Counsel quoted a case in which a woman's bones were found. A men was tried for murder, he said but further digging revealed a man’s skeleton close to the woman’s, and the man was acquitted. The onus was on the Crown to prove that tho bones in court were Mrs Mouat’s, and it had not done so. Mr Thonn.s continued that the Crown Prosecutor had suggested that if Mrs Mouat was alive she would have come back to protect Mouat in his terrible position, but if she had gone away with another man every statement made bv Mouat tallied. The hue and cry was not raised until 14 days after her disappearance. If she went off in that way, she probably was not in this country, and was not in touch with what was happening here. The Crown Prosecutor had said that her husband, above anybody else, should know where she was, but if she had cleared out in that way her husband would be the last person to know where she had gone. Mrs Prosser had said that Mrs Mouat had suffered from tho recurrence of a fever contracted in South Africa, and was depressed and melancholy. How could it be said that she did not commit suicide? She was in that state of mind in which she might have got off the tram on Friday morning and gone across to Sumner As to the blood stains, the whole of the evidence so far as the blood was concerned was consistent with a cut or a bleeding nose, but was absolutely inconsistent with the cutting up of a body. Blood that would explain a murder such as was alleged was absent-. Ihe linoleums had been sent for examination, and there was no trace of blood on them. One of the strongest pieces of evidence of Mouat’s innocence was that Mrs Mouat had a second set of false teeth, which could not be found. It was not likely that a guilty man would gq to a pawnbroker with his dead wife’s trinkets and say, ‘‘My name is Mouat.” The jury must be satisfied that there was sufficient fire on Mouat’s premises to burn the body in the short time available. It was difficult to burn a human body with a large proportion of blood and water in it. Could they believe that a small smouldering rubbish fire could destroy a body in a few hours? Could Mouat have walked out of the house with pieces of his wife under his arm and have placed them on that small fire? Where were the animal fat and animal juices? They were not present, because the fire in the grates did not burn Mrs Mouat, The body could not, have been burnt either outside” or inside. When the jury considered Mouat's movements after Mrs Mouat’s disappearance, they should remember that she had left him on a previous occasion. He gave his explanation to the police and for five or six hours he was kept at the police station and was examined. He probably was told that his .story was not believed. His Honor said that there was nothing in the evidence in support of that statement. Mr Thomas said that on that night, Mouat must have realised that a net- was being woven around him on account of his wife’s disappearance. He would realise then that he was suspected of murder. He did what any innocent man would do in a panic, lie rushed off. He did not leave the country, but went near his home, and actually slept on the verandah of his house. His action was the action of a man in a panic, not the action of a man fleeing from justice. On the Crown case alone, it would be wrong to convict As to motive, Mouat was described as a gentleman. lie had been superlatively good to Mrs Mouat. The Crown had failed to prove any motive whatever. How could Mouat turn suddenly from a decent citizen into the callous criminal the Crown made him out to be? There was not the slightest sign of the cutting up that must have been done, if the body were burnt. If the body were cut up where were the implements used Blood would stick to metal, but there was no blood on any of the tools founds on the premises. Mouat could not have sawn up his wife’s body without leaving traces of blood on the saw. There was no blood on tho tpmahawk. There were several places on the bayonet in which blood would rest. The knife, another sinister article, had no blood stains. If there had been any, would not an expert like Dr Milligan have discovered them? All those implements were clean, bright, and unstained. More important still, where was Mrs Mouat cut up? A chopper or saw must have been used if there was any cutting up, and the chopper or saw must have gone through the bone and flesh into some other substances. Even if it was done in the bath, there would be scratches. It was not done in the bed, because Mr Bickerton, the analyst, had said that there was not sufficient blood to show that any person was murdered on the bed. Yet the whole house bad been examined by the police microscopically. That part of the Crown’s case was in the air Mouat was accused of committing a foul murder with peculiar genius He actually went out of the house and left it open. If the Crown’s cose wore true, Mouat, after the deed, sang and laughed and chatted with the neighbours. Du the Crown’s theory he was a fiend incarnate, yet all the evidence showed that his disposition was quite the reverse. His whole behaviour was incompatible with his behaving in the way alleged if he were guilty. Mr Thomas claimed that he had explained away every point the Crown had raised. In addition, he had dealt with points that the Crown could not explain. Circumstantial evidence that seemed conclusive sometimes was absolutely unreliable. It must- not be forgotten that the Crown had found it impossible to reconstruct the crime. How, then, could Mouat be found guilty of it? “If this man is hanged,” Mr Thomas concluded, “and six montfis Inter Mrs Mouat returns from South Africa, what will your feeling? be? Sir John Denniston in this court often said that it was much better for 100 guilty men to escape than for one innocent person to he declared guilty. That surely is common justice. Remember that if you find Mouat guilty you find him possessed of an anatomical skill and a dexterity of which there is no evidence whatever. You find much further. You find that he is a fiend incarnate—that he committed a shocking, brutal murder, perhaps without parallel in tho annals of New Zealand. I put it to you that his guilt is impossible and you know it is. .1 cannot put it stronger.** Mr Thomas’s address to the jury occupied throe hours. r HIS HONOR SUMS UP. Summing up, Mr Justico Adams said, that after reviewing the evidence, the first question to be decided was this: Was Mrs Mouat dead? and the seoond one woo—Hod she

met her death at tho hands of her husband' A good deal had been heard during the hearing of the case on the question of circumstantial evidence, and in this connection his Honor read the opinion of an eminent English jurist, showing that such evidence bad an import-ant bearing when direct evidence was not forthcoming. 'Hie Crown Prosecutor had admitted that it was im possible to reconstruct the case, and Mr Thomas had said that this was a big weakness in the case for the Crown, but a little consideration would show that such was not tho case. Tho Crown Prosecutor put it that the crime had been committed at a time when Mouat and his wife had been alone in the house. In such circumstances only circumstantial evidence could be offered. The making of deductions from the evidence given was a matter for the jury. It was r rule, that a man was innocent until he was proved guilty, and the jury had t-o be satisfied that such was the case, before tney found the accused guilty. The statement had been made by Mouat that his wife had on one occasion left him for another man, but it was the duty of his Honor to point out that there was no evidence that such was Ihe case. It had been suggested that Mrs Mouat had suffered from low spirits and had threatened to commit suicide, but it had to be remembered that the evening before, she was, according to witnesses, in her usual spirits. She was also, according to Mouat himself, able to rise as usual in the morning •and leave the house with a view to meeting her friend. It was for the jury to determine the suicide theory. Respecting the dis covery of the bones, his Honor said that the Crown claimed that the discovery of the bones in the circumstances in which thev had been found, and in the places in which they had been found, amounted to a demonstration of conclusive guilt. The question of tho disposal of the body was not solved, nor was the question whether or not a lethal weapon was used. The Crown did not claim that the whole of the body had been destroyed by fire, but that a portion of i: had been burnt. THE JURY RETIRES. The jury retired at 6.20 p.m., but had tea before entering upon the consideration of its verdict at 8 p.m. UNABLE TO AGREE. CHRISTCHURCH, May 15. Just before midnight the jury returned and announced that it was unable to agree. The new trial has been fixed for August.