THE MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 8778, 15 November 1906, Page 3

THE MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE.

PROCEEDINGS ABANDONED. The charge of manslaughter against Georgina Frances Brown, proprietor of a ChrLstchurch nursing home, was mentioned again at the Supreme Court this morning. The charge against Mrs Brown was that she caused the death of the newly-born infant of Clarice Bell Patterson, by neglecting and omitting to provide it with proper care and attention. The main point raised was whether the child wae actually alive when it was completely delivered from its mother, and the jury failed to agree on the case. Mr Stringer appeared for the Crown, and Mr Donnelly, instructed by Mr M'Connell, for the accused. His Honor asked Mr. Stringer what action he proposed to take in view of the disagreement. Mr Stringer said that as it was clear to him that there was a doubt as to whether the child had been completely delivered before it died, he thought it well not to proceed further, and he would apply to the Department of Justice to order a stay of proceedings. He asked that the caGe should stand over until 11 a.m. on Monday to enable him to make the application. His Honor said that the course suggested by the Crown Prosecutor was a proper "one. He had considerable doubt as to whether he should not on, the previo-us day have acceded to Mr Donnelly's request and informed the jury that the case should not go to it. Tho Crown had to establish as a preliminary to a _ conviction for nianslanght er or of misconduct leading to the death of the child that it was a human being within the meaning of the Act. By Section 155 of the Act a human being was defined as " a child that has completely proceeded in a living state from tho body of its mother." There was distinct medical evidence from the medical man who attended the case that the probability was that the child was dead before it proceeded from the body of its -mother. A doctor called by the Crown said that the probability was the other way, but also admitted that the other possibility was not excluded. That being so, it would have been his duty to tell the jury that the possibility of the child having never lived was not excluded, had it not been for the evidence of the child's mother, who stated that she thought that she had felt the child move after it was completely born. It was clear, however, that the mother was at the time of the birth in a greatly excited state, as was natural under the circumstances. There was. further, the statement of one medical man that the mother would probably be not in a fit condition to distinguish the movements of a child within from those of the child without the body. Under these circu instances, if the verdict had been one of guilty, he would have had to reserve tne case for the Court of Appeal. As there was grave doubt in the matter, and the jury had disagreed, it would not be in the interest of public justice to re-try the matter. He had only to add that it was satisfactory to know that recent legislation would prevent _ any recurrence of such a state of things as that disclosed by the C!?*e. The case.could fctnnd over until Monday. The accused was remanded without bail, Mr Donnelly undertaking that she should appear on Monday.