ONGAROTO MURDER.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16539, 24 September 1921, Page 10

ONGAROTO MURDER.

NO APPEAL ALLOWED. (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, September 24. The Appeal Court dismissed a motion for leave to appeal against the sentence of deatli on Te Kaliu, convicted of the Ongaroto murder. Hakaraia Te Kahua case Mr Hampson appeared for prisoner, and Mr MacGregor, K.C., Solicitor-General, for the Crown. Mr Hampson relied on three contentions: (1) What was the effect of the misdirection on the second jury; (2) What rights accrued to accused as a result of this misdirection ; and (3) What was the effect of the misdirection on the third jury. He maintained that there had been misdirection at the second trial, which had gone before the public through the Press, and must have affected the third trial. Mr Justice Sim asked what question of law was raised on the thirJ trial, which should have been reserved. On Mr Hampson stating that it was the matter raised in the second trial that affected the jfhird trial, his Honor replied that it was a most fantastic question of law. The Court did not call on Mr MacGregor, but dismissed the application at once, stating that a written judgment would be delivered later on. The written judgment of tha Court says: “We are satisfied that the answer given bv the learned Judge at the second trial did not amount to a comment within the meaning of Section 243 of the Crimes* Act. The question submitted by the jury does not refer specificiall.y to the evidence by accused himself but to the evidence of any persons who might be called to support the suggestions made by counsel as to the money in possession of accused. The answer given by the learned Judge deals with that subject and carefully avoids any reference to any evidence which might have been given by prisoner himself. Tlie comment prohibited is specific reference to the fact that accused has not given evidence. Tt is desirable to add that improper comment on a trial which results in disagreement cannot be treated as raising a question of law on the subsequent ’trial. The application is therefore dismissed.”