DEATH SENTENCE.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20625, 28 May 1935, Page 4

DEATH SENTENCE.

Price Found Guilty of Murder. JURY OUT ONLY AN HOUR. Per Press Association. NAPIER, May 27. A crowded courtroom heard the sentence of death passed upon Charles William Price, when, after a retirement of little more than an hour, the jury returned with a verdict that he murdered Evelyn Mary Madden. Price was not visibly moved when the verdict was returned against him. nor did he appear to suffer any stress, when, donning the black cap. Mr Justice Blair pronounced sentence. The only sign he showed of emotion was that, when asked if he had anything to say why sentence of death should not be passed upon him, he almost shouted “No.” There was a very tense atmosphere in the courtroom while the jury was absent, and during the five minutes which elapsed between the jury’s return and his Honour’s entry into the chamber. All attention was focused on Price as the sentence was pronounced, and there was little murmuring. A slight buzz of murmuring broke out when, after Price had been removed, his Honor addressed the j-urv and granted them seven years’ exernption from jury service. The whispering repeated the phrase “seven years” all round the court chamber, but silepce was restored by a cry from the court orderlies. When Price had been removed from the dock, the foreman of the jury announced that the jury wished to recommend that the work of Detective Sergeant J. Bickerdike, Detective B. Farquharson and acting Detective If F. Coddington should be placed on record for the manner in which they placed the case before the jury. Defence Commended. His Honor commended the manner in which the defence was conducted and said that Mr Averill and his associate, Mr O’Dowd, had nothing with which to reproach themselves. Mr Averill’s closing address had been admirable, his Honor said. He closely watched the defence, and so far as he could see. counsel had not made a sinele mistake. Mr Lusk, in his address to the jury, pointed out discrepancies in Price’s story to the taxi-driver as to the reason he took the girl into the paddockAccused said in evidence that there was no talk of Hollis’s until they sat down, but he had told the taxi-driver when he left that he was taking her to Hollis’s. He also told the taxi-driver he had left her at Hollis’s, but he. in his evidence, said that when she walked off that was the last he had seen of her. Last Person With Girl. “ This one fact is certain,” he continued. “Accused was the last person to be alcne with Miss Madden, while she was alive. They were together there not far from where her body was eventually discovered, and naturally an explanation is required from accused. “ Price said that he was fond of the. girl, but he does not even follow her when she leaves him. “ The man who committed the crime certainly took her money. There was not a copper left in her purse, not a penny for her to get back to town with. Everything was gone. The question is: Who was the man who got away with it? “Mr Averill suggested that another man may have come on the scene and waylaid and murdered her.” said Mr Lusk, “ but it must be remembered that the place where her body was found war. not even in the direction bf Hollis’s, where accused stated he left her. “ It was never suggested that there was premeditation. Mr Averill said that this man never would have taken out this girl in a taxi-cab in order to commit this crime. The fact that he disclosed who he was entitles us to swallow all that to show the accused did not premeditate the crime. I do r.ot suggest it was premeditated up to the time accused and the girl were disappearing from the view of Guild. “Price,” said Mr Lusk, “took charge of Miss Madden’s suitcases. Knowing she was left in the backblocks with no clothing other than that she was wearing, he never made any enquiries as to what became of her.” His Honor Sums Up. In traversing the evidence his Honor said that there was no evidence of premeditation, right up to the point where the accused left Guild’s motor-car at the ploughman’s camp on the backward journey. It was for the jury to consider what importance they attached to Price’s taking the girl to Hollis’s by way of the paddock. The jury themselves had seen the locality and it was for them to consider whether the fact that it was a lonely spot was of any significance. Regarding Price’s wet feet when he returned to the car. his Honor said that he did not think the Crown suggested that was the result of his pushing the body into the water, but of his having returned to the road by traversing the country near where the body was found. On February 7, the evidence showed, accused took possession of the girl’s cases and the Crown relied on that fact to show that Price thought nothing more would be heard of her. Weight had to be placed on that evidence. They had heard accused’s explanation. was entirely a matter for the jury. “In all fairness to the accused, I am bound to say that the Crown has not established premeditation on the part of accused.” his Honor added. “So far as the state of the girl’s disarranged clothing is concerned the jury must re-

member that they are trying a case of murder, not one of rape, and the condition of the girl’s clothing could only be evidence as to motive.” The jury retired at six minutes past four and returned at 5.15 with a verdict of guilty.