APPEAL COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5874, 12 March 1887, Page 3

APPEAL COURT.

• JUDGMENT IN THE

HALL CASE. ] ______ ' The Conviction Not i Sustained. ] _______ i This Day. i j At eleven o'clock this morning the ad- * journed sitting of the Supreme Court was held for the purpose of giving judgment in the Hall case. As on former occasions, there was a somewhat large attendance of the public, the legal profession being well represented. < Prom all parts of the Colony urgent telegramß were received this morning, re- f questing speedy intimation of the result. j Mr Stringer appeared for the Crown, \ and Mr Chapman for the accused. £ As has been already stated in our „ columns, the Chief Justice left for the 1 West Coast on Friday morning. The j judgment of the Court, which, as usual, had been written, was read ] by His Honor Mr Justice Johnston, and was ). listened to with very marked attention. i Their Honors Judges Bichmond, Ward, * ' and Williams also occupied seats on the l Bench. i The substance of the judgment was as j follows : — ] Before proceeding, Mr Justice Johnston ] stated, on behalf of the Chief Justice, that , he assented to the decision, though not ne- J cessarily agreeing with every statement of opinion. The questions submitted to the ; Court were then stated, and were dealt : with in their order. There was vague- ( ness as to the purpose for which the evidence was to be used — what it was, to prove. The prisoner only 1 was implicated, and therefore the evidence \ was admitted to show the prisoner's connection with the administration of the : poison. Design or accident ? waa the next question. Eeference was then made to the L two-fold points that the prisoner administered and did so with intent, and to ' establish this the evidence was let in. As proof of intent the evidence was ad- | missible for the purpose of proving

guilty knowledge. The admission, no doubt constituted an exception to the general principle. Eefeernce was here made to parallel cases : All the Judges avoided the line followed in the present case. Both by Bench and Bar the evidence, it seemed, 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 the death of Captain Cain could be. linked together, for the purposes of the trial, as one case. It appeared to the Court that there was no evidence of a design requiring the death of the two. Cases bearing on this part of the judgment were cited from the American Court records. Was there any other connection needed in the light of ocience, philosophy, or common Bense ? It was reasonable to infer, on these grounds, that the human agency in the two case 3 was the same. But this mode of proof, it was settled, was inadmissible. Palmer's case and others closely resembling that before the Court were quoted. As to the third ground, it could not be proper to admit evidence on the pretext of showing -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 prove the guilt of a prisoner, though in this case the Court saw no such sequence and connection. The strong moral probability was not the kind of proof exacted ; it was indeed that kind of proof which the English law rightly rejected. The Court was not concerned with the popular idea of a failure of justice : it was their duty to see that justice was administered according to the law. In conclusion, the opinion was expressed that the learned Judge who tried the case had practically no option in admitting the evidence. No single Judge could have taken upon himself to refuse the admission of such evidence. For the reasons stated, the Court was of opinion that the prisoner ought not to have been convicted.