THE OMEO MURDER.

Taranaki Daily News, 19 May 1928, Page 16

THE OMEO MURDER.

CLERGYMAN ACQUITTED. TENSE CLOSING SCENES. ■ 1 The following is from a Melbourne paper:— After a retirement of six hours and 20 minutes the jury returned to-night with a verdict of ‘‘not guilty” in the second trial of Ronald Geeves Griggs, ex-Methodist clergyman at Omeo, who was charged with murdering his wife on January 3 with doses of arsenic. When the jury returned the second time Griggs appeared in the last stages of agitation, though under great control. Ho gripped the front, of the dock fiercely, and peered anxiously at the foreman. ' When “not guilty” was uttered, after the short delay of the formal interro gation, Griggs gasped and leaned backward, but his grip on the front of the dock held him firm. His friend, Rev. 11. M. Knuckey, who had attended Griggs throughout the trial and also the first trial at Sale, collapsed in a faint on the floor. Tire first act of Griggs when released from the prisoner's dock was to dart across the floor of the court-room to his friend. As the court had been cleared there were only officials, pressmen, and Mr. Knuckey present to witness the acquital. There were no women present. Griggs left the court shortly afterwards in a taxi. MEMORABLE SCENES. Memorable scenes were enacted throughout the day and during the closing hours when the jury was in retirement. For the fourth morning a knot of people was waiting outside the court doors when dawn appeared over the city. Those who failed to gain admittance hung about for hours. Even after the jury retired at 3.27 a crowd of 100 people hung about outside the court. Those inside would have remained glued to their seats, but the gallery was cleared, and none of the public was re-admitted to hear the verdict. Early in the evening the crowd which had waited outside was reinforced to 400. As 9.30 approached and the expiration of the six hours usually allowed a jury in which to come to a decision it was thought to be certain that a disagreement had occurred. On the tick of the half-hour the jury knocked, and was re-admitted to the court, but only with d request for an extension of time. His Honour granted the request, and the jury retired once more, to return at 9.47 "with the verdict of not guilty. The police stated later that Grigg* collapsed on the stairs when ascend ing from the cells to the dock to hear the jury’s verdict, and had to be assisted to the top. For three hours 12 minutes, Mr. Justice MacFarlan held the Court motionless in the gri-p of his eloquence with a masterly summing-up. It wa« apparent that he himself was as intensely interested in this great drama covering the gamut of all the human passions as those who had waited since dawn for those words. He presented the facts coldly ami dispassionately w’ith irresistible logic. Griggs listened intently, mostly with his eyes turned upwards and his chin resting in his hand. Ho betrayed no active signs of nervousness, even w’heu the most incriminating points made against him were paraded for the jury. Nor did his demeanour change when the judge weighed the possibilities ot suicide or accidental death raised by the defence. COURT RELAXED. When his Honour ceased the crowded court relaxed. Individuals coughed, and there was a sudden break from the hushed silence to a buzz of activity. “It would be improper for you to approach this case with the idea, ‘Here js a man carrying on with this girl. It is very convenient for him to get rid of his wife,’ ” eaid his Honour. “Griggs does not stand before you charged with adultery, leading a double life, or with having written that letter to the deceased’s mother, with its sham and hypocrisy. “One cannot help feeling a certain amount of indignation, perhaps disgust., when one reads the letter written to the mother under those circumstances. Holding feelings of resentment and disgust with Grigg’s conduct is very bad, and, unless one watches one’s judgment very closely these feelings ma'y warp it.” “The jury’s duty,” said his Honour, “was to decide whether Griggs killed bis wife intentionally, and the field of inquiry was narrowed to whether he killed her by administering or causing her to take arsenic.” Matters with an important bearing ou the case were the sex relations of Griggs with Lottie Condon; his relations with his wife, the double life he was leading, and lus conduct to cover up those rel» tions. The defence had admitted that the woman died from arsenical poisoning, but raised the two obvious possi bilities of suicide or mistake. “THERE WAS MOTIVE.” Undoubtedly Mrs. Grigg’s sickness commenced the evening after her return to Omeo from Tasmania, even before the chemist’s prescription was made up. The Crown’s case was that Griggs had the opportunity of obtaining arsenic at Condon’s, and at another farmer’s, where large quantities were kept. Motive did not prove commission of a crime, but there wa? a motive in this case for the prisoner, wishing to be rid of his wife, and the Crown said it had proved it up to the hilt. At the conclusion of the judge's address, Mr. Maxwell, senior counsel for the defence, asked his Honour to elaborate two points: (1) the improbability of Griggs administering what would be a fatal dose of arsenic the moment his wife set foot in the parsonage. If Griggs knew anything about arsenic poisoning was it likely that he would have given her poison enough to kill her in anything from 12 hours to three days?

Tlic second was in regard to the evidence of any mistake which may have been made by Mr. Perry.