WAS MOUAT GUILTY?

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 664, 16 May 1929, Page 1

WAS MOUAT GUILTY?

Petition to Governor-in-Coimcil May Reopen Celebrated Case AUCKLAND SOLICITORS INSTRUCTED AX attempt is to be made shortly :>> have reopened tincelebrated Mouat ease which resolved itself into one of the most sensational murder trials in the history of New Zealand criminal proceedings. Convicted on a manslaughter verdict for the killing of his wife in Christchurch, Frederick Peter Mount is nowserving a sentence of 17 years’ imprisonment in the Mount Eden Gaol.

YTESSRS. MATTHEWS AND CLARKE, solicitors, of Auckland, are preparing a detailed petition which will be presented to the Governor in Council under section 447 of the Crimes’ Act, 1928. In all probability this petition will ask for a pardon for Mouat, a commutation of sentence, or the appointment of a special commission of inquiry to consider the desirability of a retrial. Since the imprisonment of Mouat, nearly four years ago, continuous investigations have been made by relatives and other interested persons, and it is understood that many fresh facts have been secured. The full text of the section under which the object of the petition will be sought is as follows: “Where, on application for the mercy of the Crown on behalf of any person convicted of a crime, the Governor-in-Council entertaining a doubt whether such person ought to have been convicted, he may, instead of remitting or commuting the sentence after such inquiry as he thinks proper, by an order in writing, direct a new trial at such time and before such court as hq thinks proper.” MANSLAUGHTER VERDICT On August 31, 1925, Frederick Peter Mouat -was sentenced to imprisonment for 17 years for the slaying of liis wife, a manslaughter yerdict saving him from the gallows. An article published in THE SUN of May 28, 1928, disclosed the fact that, ever since the trial and retrial of Mouat, after the disagreement of the jury on the major charge, one of his relatives, a woman now living in Auckland, has worked incessantly to establish his Innocence. The contention is that Nellie Mouat was not murdered by her husband, cut to pieces and burned with methodical thoroughness in various fires which were known to have been lighted about the house, but that she disappeared of her own free will, and is still living. FR'ESH DETAILS The relatives' contention as outlined in The Sun was based upon a series of circumstances which had been gathered and collated, recalling the major details of the incident and its consequences. It was contended that evidence was in the hands of the defence, although not used at the trial, that £n insurance agent in Christchurch, who knew Mrs. Mouat personally, spoke to her as she sat in the train some days after she was supposed to have disappeared. Two signed statements bearing on this aspect are held. Another circumstance is the statement of an Auckland man that he saw Mrs. Mouat in Albert Park, Auckland, in July of 1925—after the first trial, but before fthe final trial of her husband.

It was then apparent that there was much trouble in the Mouat household because of the friendship of Mrs. Mouat with other men—both in New Zealand and in England—and the suggestion w T as made on the evidence

of acquaintances that Mrs. Mouat had accumulated a large sum of money. MISSING FALSE TEETH A big point was made of Mrs. Mouat’s teeth. It is established bv affidavit from England that two sets of teeth were made by a certain dentist there, and one set. made for h v in New Zealand. The existence of two sets only was proved at tho trial. The relatives say the third set is still being worn by Mrs. Mouat herself. Several articles of clothing as well as a small box and some paper are stated to be missing. The wooden box which Mouat brought from Africa contained his papers and pistol. Neither the box nor the pistol was found.

One cf the most convincing pieces of evidence against Mouat was the presence of human bones among the remains of fires in the house and in the yard. The investigators, on behalf of Mouat, told The Sun that they placed reliance on the discovery of parts of human skeletons on adjoining sections which, they say, were used for rubbish dumps for specimens used by medical students. Witnesses who gave evidence for the Crown are now prepared, the relatives said, to come forward and say they did not tell, at the trial, everything they knew about, the occurrence, but merely answered questions. State ments were produced also respecting the stained sheets found in tlie house, and the part which Merritt. Mrs. Mouat’s brother, played in the discovery of them. The sheet concerned, it. was claimed, was never on the bed of Mrs. Mouat, but on that of a barman lodger who committed suicide on the second anniversary of the dis appearance of Mrs. Mouat. Endeavours were made by the relatives to induce the Howard Penal Reform League to take up the case, bur the League would not do so until half the sentence had been served.

AT THE TRIALS SENSATIONAL CASE QUESTIONS OF EVIDENCE CHRISTCHURCH, Today. The mos: sensational trials heid in the Supreme Court of Christchurch for 30 years were those in May and August. 1925, in which Mouat was charged with the murder of his wife. Ellen Louise, on or about February 19. 1925. After a retirement of over four hours. the jury returned at 1.30 a m. on August 27 with a verdict of manslaughter. From the time Mrs. Mouat was first missed from her home in Beckford Road, St. Martin’s, the case held sensational features and was surrounded by many rumours and conjectures Among others was the story that Mrs. Mouat had been seen alive. It is understood that appeal will be lodged on the grounds that evidence could have been called in Mouat's favour and that Mouat could have given evidence- which would have assisted his -case.