Charge of Murder.

Thames Advertiser, Volume XXIX, Issue 9155, 27 September 1898, Page 3

Charge of Murder.

' (Continued from Page 4.) -On the Court resuming after thi midday adjournment, Patrick O'Brien, residing ut Mata toke, deposed that he knew accused and lived not far from the residence ol acoused's mother. Kemombei , ' d iiuur day night, August 27th. Ac Bpaj witness was in company with William Oooke and witness , brother (Jour O'Brien), and heard that accused wa> missing from her home. They searched all through the titree by GooLVs house and on the. opposite side of tho ro d until about midnight, - when Boyle joined them, and they formed two parties. Witness and \Oooke and Boyle then continued tho search up till 2.30 on the Sunday morning, when they succeeded in .finding accused. They heard her call, and rpcognised her voice. They had dogs with them, and were calling to the dogs, Accused was coming out of the titroe near a track leading to the main public road when Joseph Boyle met her. The spot was about 40 yards from the main road. When witness saw acousod she was walking along with Boyle, who had to help her a bit, and who had hold of hor arm,.helping her.along. Accused walked with Boylo to the house. The titree was high, with thick undergrowth.' Did not hear accused say anything, and heard nobody ask her why sho.went to the titree. Witness did not hear anyone call accused's, namei whilei the soarch was in progress. Witness did not assist in the search for the baby. To. His Worship; Did not know where 1 tho baby was found. Detective fatnck Herbert remembered. Monday, August 29th. On that* day, in company with Constable Steeyens, witness went to-Matatoke, arriving i at about \1 noon. Witness saw the in bed in tho prosence of her mother, and got particulars from both as to the direotion in wliich to search for' the baby, Witness and ConstableSteevens wont to the scrub on the side of the road opposite to accused's house, and searohed the scrub separately. At about 12.30 Constable Steeveus called witness, and on ap. preaching witness saw the dead body of a female infant partially covered with fresh fern that had been plucked from around it. It was quite naked, lying .on its back, both legs inclined slightly to the left from the hips, its arms by its sides. On the. left leg and on the right foot were slight traces of blood. The navel cord was cut and untied at a distance of about 6 inches from the bcjdy.. Apiece of the navel cord about five or six inches long was lying about a yard away. The table knife that had been produced and identified by the witness. Mrs Cooke was lying a' foot from the body. The knife produced was, the, knife referred to. It was bloodstained as at' present. The place wherethe body was found was about 250 yards from acoused's house by the track, and about 100 or 120 yds from the main road. The body wasfo'und in very thick high titree. There was a small narrow traok leading past the spot, within a foot or two of where the body was found, The place was a difficult one to soaroh, and it was by great luck that the body was found in so short a time, The body was conveyed to accused's house, and witness showed it to her mother, and also the knife produced. Witness took pos session from accused's mother of .the articles of clothing produced,, They were soaking in watoi at the time, and were blood stained. The babs"the clothes, and the" knife were the sp,me as referred to iri.Dr. Callan's evidence; The body was; brought to the morgue. Accused;'told. witness at Matatoke, , in the .'presenpe of her mother, that she thougH the child was bom dead because, it never cried. . . . • Cross -examiued by Mr Miller: There were no marks of violence on the body. On inquiry from accused as to where the body was, accused directed witness to the spot, and said that if she were allowed to get up she .would go and find it. The place described by acousedwas not the place that' the body was found, but accused might easily have niado a raUtake as to distance. ' It whs farther from the road than accused led witness to believe, and it was only by Constable Steevens' searching in another place which witness (judgingfrom accused's directions) had thought to be improbable, that the body,was found. An inquest was held on the body, and the effeotof the verdict was that death arose by bleeding through the navel cord, through the ignorance and ini experience of the mother, Witness •could not guarantee the «xaot words 'of the verdict, Tho accused also gave jevidence at the inquest, ; Sergt. Gillies, who had objeotod to the admission of the inquest verdict— an objection that His Worship overruled,—now contended that the witness was entitled to give evidence as to accused's evidence at the inquest. Tho Bergeant:^pointed ,out that as', the yerdict had been admitted, the evidence on which ilieyenUot had been obtained should bejadmitted. i Mr Miller objected, and said that if the evidence of the accused were to be used; against her, she should have been cautioned before giving evidence. i Sergt. GiUiossaid that Mr Miller was present as acousod's solicitor,., and permitted accused to.enter the witness box. ' ■ Witness: The accused gave evidence at the inquest, and wab allowed to,.'be questioned only by the Coroner. Vyituesa was the ouly one to' take down both question and answer, which made witness' notes different from the Cprurier's' notes. ! His Worship said that, all evidence in the Coroner's Court was recorded, and it should be obtained from the record* if needed, by putting' in the i depositions. Mr Miller objected to ttWiRQiVi

evidence being given, especially a Detective Herbert said that his note liffered from the Coroner's. Witness: must necessaril differ, king question and answer. Sergt. Gillies: The Coroner simpl put the words into accuEo l's mouth an sheaneweredyesorno. He (Sergl Gilli<>B)hadnotbe9nallowelloputques one nut evon throug i the Coroner, His Worship said he was no responsible for what the Corone: might have dono. Witnees (under re«examination b' Hergt. Gilliee):. Heard tho accuse! give evidence on oath at the Coroner'i inques:. The examination wat con duoteel by the Coroner, and witriesi made exact note of question anc anewer, -nhich he now produced. Mr Miller repeated his objection He (as her solicitor) did not call th< accused at the inquest, and did not ast her a question. She was called by the Coroner to clear up a point for the jury, The present matter did notarise out of cross-examination. Sergt. Gillies said ho had not ded to refer to the inquest. Mr Miller made first reference.' If Mr Miller had not taken him off his guard in asking for the verdict, ho would have beon prepared to also produce the deposit tions from Mr Bruce, As it was, however, the prosecution could call Mr Bruce to give evidence before the Supreme Court. Ho would leave the matter in His Worship's hands, His Worship deoided not to admit the. evidence of accused's depositions, but to make a note of Sergt. Gillies' application and of Mr Miller's objection,to the effect that admission of such evidence was refused because the proper source was the Coroner's own depositions. Witness, to His Worship: Accused did dot deny giving birth to a child, The distance to whore the mother said the body of the child was, was measured from the fence on the other side of the road.. A marginal note was made in the depositions to the effect that Sergeant Gillies had made his application because the Coroner had refused to allow the accused to be questioned, Constable Chas. J. Steevene deposed that he assisted Detective Herbert to soarch some scrub it Matatoke. on August 29th, They searohod separately, and. after searching for about half an hour, witness found the body of a female child. It was lying ou its back, perfectly naked, partially covered with fern, in thick titroe, about one yard from a traok, which was about .a yard in width. Witness oalled Detective Herbert. A table knife (produced) was found close to the body of the child, about a yard away. A piece of the navel cord about four inches long was lying about a yard a*vay from the body. The body was taken to Mrs Cooke's house, and subsequently to the morgue. Mr Miller asked if His Worship considered that &prima facie case was made.outfj'.irtlie Court thought it had power'to deal with the case, he would be prepared to address the Court at the proper time, He would call His Worship's attention to casos in which the evidence went no further than in this case, and which had been found ' riot guilty' by the jury. His.Worship said lie would like to read over the depositions before com ing to a decision. He pointed out 1 that cases of omission as well as com mission came under the Criminal Code. • His Worship further stated that from hie present impression of the depositions it was not a case of. murder in the.. usual eene*, and there seemed to be nothing very strong as showing an .intention with regard to what took place. It apprnred that all had arisen through ncousedle'av ingherhomeand going into the titree. The depositions were then read in full to the accused, • .''... , Mr Miller having addressed the Court, His Worship deferred hisdeci-, sion till 2.30 p.m. on Monday noxt, and granted bail--self in £200, and sureties of £100 each. John Douglas and Robert Cox, of Warahoe,becauae the necessary sureties, aud accused was released.