CHARGE OF MURDER.

Taranaki Daily News, 13 May 1925, Page 6

CHARGE OF MURDER.

TRIAL OF MOUAT OPENS* * M MYSTERY OF WOMAN S DEATB* CASE FOR THE CROWN. OUTLINE OF THE EVIDENCE. By Telegraph—Prese Association. Christchurch, Last Night. The trial of Frederick Peter Mouat oij a charge of having murdered his wife, Ellen Louise Mouat, at St. Martin’s ou or about February 20 last, opened in the Supreme Court to-day before Mr® Justice Adams. Long before the doors of the court opened a crowd of men and women gathered outside in the rain. No sooner were the doors thrown open by the police than most of those waiting swarmed in and occupied the gallery* A fair number lingered outside an<J craned their necks to get a view of Mouat as he was taken from the prison van to the cells. Boxes, blankets, a ~ pillow, several bottles and tins of bones and other exhibits were placed on thq floor of the court in front of the jury, while a plan of Mouat’s house was shown on the table. 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 o'clock on Thursday, February 19, but that she was killed by accused and her was destroyed by fire. SEVERAL FIRES. His Honour said it was not necessary fcr him to do more than Indicate generally the nature of the evidence for the Crown. Part of it was scientific. It was said by the Crown that the W’hole of Mrs. Mouat’s wardrobe had been found in the house, including a costume and other articles, which accused described as being her on the morning of Friday, FebniSn-y 20, and also that her handbag, corsets, shoes, and artificial teeth w'ere found in the house. The inference the jury was asked to draw from this was that sho must have left without clothing. Then the conduct of Mouat was ra« lied on in a great many particular* By far the most important part of the case which the Crown alleged was the evidence to show that accused had fires burning on his section after the disappcarance of his wife, that fires were burning on the section outside, and also under the copper and in the fireplace of the dining room. It was further claimed that on the site of these fires had been found a number of bones and pieces of hone, 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. Circumstances regarding 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 even-i irgs and nights following her disappearance, and his getting, out of the way at a later stage.

COMMENT ON THE CASE._ The Grand Jury returned a true IdO and Mouat pleaded not guilty. Twenty jurymen were challenged by the Crowl, and six by the defence. Mr. A. T. Donnelly (Crown Prosecutor). in opening the case for the Crownj pointed out the gravity of the charge. He said Mouat must be tried on tha evidence in court, and not on any other evidence. If the jury had any reason* able doubt as to his guilf. they should acquit him. Counsel hoped that the jury would give the case the same unprejudiced consideration as they would give to any minor and less sensational i 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 newspapers. 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 qot, in the interest of fair trials, Parliament should devise some standard of fair and proper criticism and of reporting, which would define what v as fait and proper with greater clearness than could be applied In the stress of cow petition between newspapers. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. A large quantity of evidence would be given, including three statements by Mouat. The whole of the evidence was addressed to prove two simple facta, on which the Crown based the charge, viz.: (1) That Mrs. Mouat was dead;! and (2) that Mouat killed her. Counsel might say at once that there was no direct evidence by eye-witnesses aS to either fact. Nobody saw Mouat kill Mrs. Mouat, nobody knew how she was killed, and nobody .saw her bexjy a,fte» she was killed, but the Crowp w6i|l(l prove her death at Mount’s hands by what was called circumstantial evidence, by facts that pointed all on« way and made credible only one explanation, namely, that Mrs. Mouat waS dead, and that Mouat killed her. Before coining to details, counsel said he could place the case for the CYowxl before, the jury by a statjement which .would show how strong, the case was. It would show that the case was proved by the substantial evidence of methodical certainty., just as in a sum of simple arithmetic. Mr. tlonneWy then, in a lengthy address, went the details, of the case pn the lines of the evidence given in the. Magistrate < Court about three weeks ago. t . The trial in likely to last till ,Satup