WOMAN ACQUITTED.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20285, 20 April 1934, Page 5

WOMAN ACQUITTED.

Was Charged With Murder ; of Man. ■ i PUBLIC SYMPATHY. (Special to the “ Star.”) SYDNEY, April 13. As was generally anticipated, the jury found Annie Richards “ not i guilty ” of murdering George Nett. The tr2gic death of Nott has caused a great deal of excitement in the district, and ' the Court at Narrabri was crowded ' throughout the trial, i Mr M'Ghie. who appeared for the [ Crown, maintained that on Mrs Rich- | ards's own confession she was guilty of , murder; and certainly her admission of responsibility for Notts death was I sweeping enough. But from the jury's standpoint Mr M'Ghie did not improve his case by insinuating that Mrs Richards may have been incited to murder by jealousy; nor did he help matters by making the gruesome suggestion that Nott may not have been dead when Mrs Richards burned the body, j Mr Justice Street, in summing up, ! was careful to point out that if Mrs | Richards believed Nott to be dead at | I the time, no further guilt was incurred bv disposing of the corpse. But Mr Alack, K.C., who appeared for Mrs Richards -adopted a line of defence that speedily proved effective. He dwelt upon the kindness shown to Nott by Mrs Richards and her husband, their generosity in giving him shelter and lending him money, and her goodness to him. after his accident, in the hospital and at her own home. Mr Mack called witnesses to show that Nott had made a practice of borrowing money, and refusing to repay it; and he disposed of the jealous)' charge by calling j evidence which showed that Mrs Rich I ards wished to prevent his contempla*- j ea marriage because she knew that he j was already a married man. Of course, Mr Alack did not admit j any premeditation, and this part of the j defence he managed skilfully and effec- |

tively. How could Mrs Richards—a small, weak woman—expect to injure Nott, a man 6ft 4in in height and 17 stone in weight, by throwing a stone at him? The stone was not thrown to kill him. As she realised his base in. gratitude and listened to the vile terms of abuse that he heaped upon her and her husband, she lost her self-control and she threw the stone “ as a gesture of disgust.” Mr Mack not only defied the jury to bring her in guilty of murder, or even of manslaughter—he demanded her complete exoneration. And the jury, after an absence of only fifty minutes, gave a verdict of “not guilty.” Public opinion here is entirely in agreement with this conclusion. It would be ludicrous to suggest that Mrs Richards had any intention of murdering Nott, or that any serious degree of culpability attaches to her. Everybody sympathised with her in the terrib’e ordeal through which she has had to pass. Her husband, too, deserves much sympathy, for he is still liable to the charge of becoming an “accessory after the fact ” by sheltering his wife, and legal formalities prevent his compl3*e discharge for the moment. However, that difficulty will speedily be got over, and as soon as circumstances will permit the man and woman, bound together by many years of faithful affecI lion, will leave for ever the home darkened by this terrible tragedy.