THOMAS HALL'S ACQUITTAL. The Reason of the Appeal Court. Christchurch, March 14.

Te Aroha News, Volume IV, Issue 195, 19 March 1887, Page 4

THOMAS HAL L'S ACQUITTAL. The Reason of the Appeal Court. Christchurc h, March 14.

At 11 o'clock this morning a sitting of the Appeal Court was held for the purpose of giving judgment in Hall's case. As on former occasions, there was a somewhat large attendance, the legal profession be* ing well represented, Mr Stringer appeared for the Crown, and Mr Chapman for the accused. Judgment, which as usual had been written, was read by Mr Jußtice Johnston, and Judges Richmond, Ward, and Williams also occupied seatt on the Bench, Before proceeding Mr Johnston stated, on behalf of the Chief Justice, that he assented to the decision, though not agreeing with every statement of opinion. The questions submitted to the Court were then stated and were dealt with in their order. There was some vagueness as to the purpose which the evidence objected to was to prove. The prisoner only was implicated, and therefore the evidence could only have been admitted to show the prisoner's connection with the administration of poison. Design or accident, was the question. Reference was then made to the twofold point that the prisoner administered and did so with intent. To establish this the evidence was put in as proof of intent. The evidence was admiesible for the purpose of proving guilty knowledge. The admission no doubt constituted an exception to the general principle. Reference was here made to the parallel cases. 411 Judges avoided the line followed in the present case Both by Bench and Bar the evidence, it seems, was deemed admissible only on the general question as to whether the death was caused by accident or design. Then came the question whether the poisoning of Mrs Hall and Captain Cain could be linked together for the purposes of the trial as one transaction. It appeared to the Court that there was no evidence of a design requiring the death of the two. Was there any other connection needed in the light of science, philosophy, or common sense? It was reasonable to infer on the these grounds that the human agency in the two cases was the same, but this mode of proof it was settled was inadmissible. Palmer's caee and others closely resembling that before the Court were quoted. As to the third ground, it could not be proper to admit the evidence on the pretext of ahowiug what were the symptoms following upon the administration of a certain poison. The Court at the same time was not disposed to deny that sometimes a series of similar occurrences might go to provo the guilt of a prisoner, though in thi-t case the Court saw no sequence and connection Btrong moral probability has not tho kind of proof exacted It "waf, indeed, that kind of proof which the English law rightly rejected The Court was not concerned with the popular idea of u failure of justice It was their duty to sco that justice was administered according to law. In conclusion the opinion was expressed that tho learned Judge who tried the case bad practically no option in admitting the evidence. No single Judge would have taken upon himself to refuse the admiesion of euch ev.dence. For the reasons stated, the Court was unanimously of opinion that the prisoner ought not to have been convicted.