DEFENCE OF NEILING

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 85, Issue 112, 15 May 1941, Page 6

DEFENCE OF NEILING

WELLINGTON MURDER TRIAL AN ALTERNATIVE THEORY PUT FORWARD EVIDENCE AS TO CAUSE OF DEATH (Press Assn.) Wellington. May 14. The cross-examination of Dr. P. P. Lynch, consulting pathologist to the Wellington Hospital, on the conclusions he had reached after a postmortem examination of the deceased, occupied the greater part of yesterday afternoon in the Supreme Court in the trial of Leonard Neiling, aged 29. a labourer, charged with murdering Mrs. Marjory Livingston Horton at Wellington on or about January 9, 1941. The Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) is on the Bench. The case for the Crown 1s being conducted by Mr. C. H. Weston, K.C.. and Mr. W. R. Birks, and the accused is represented by Mr. W. E. Leicester and Mr. T. P. McCarthy.

Cross-examined by Mr. Leicester. Dr. Lynch said that bruising might occur elsewhere than at the actual part of which violence was applied.

Witness said there were no abrasions around the eyelids. If a powerful man strikes a blow with his clenched fist into a person’s eye it would be reasonable to expect some abrasions on the skin’s surface? —Not from a punch with a fist. I think a punch from a fist would be more likely to be followed by a split. The cut over the eye was consistent with having come into contact with a sharp surface? —A hard surface.

| In reply to further questions, wit- | ness said the wound might have been I done by contact with a sharp surface. If, by’ coming into contact with a sharp surface, a lacerated wound was caused, one would expect bruising. The injury above the eye was just as consistent with a fall as with a blow. Any injury in the region of the eye was likely to be associated with black eyes, because the surrounding tissues were so soft and blood easily tracked along. Mr. Leicester: I understand you to express the theory that the deceased was standing on the gravel when she was struck? -Yes. Had a Number of Drinks We know in this case that the deceased had had a number of drinks on the afternoon, possibly six or seven drinks of beer, and you have told us something of her physical state apart from the injuries. On the assumption that she was slightly intoxicated somewhere about 10.30 in the evening, it would not take very much liquor an hour later to make such a subject unsteady? Dr. Lynch: That, is in rather general terms. It she was slightly’ under the influence of liquor at a late hour at night it would be certain that any more alcohol would make her less steady, but I can’t go further than that.'

Witness added that in general terms he would agree that if a person had been intoxicated and had recovered it. would not take so much liquor later to renew lhe unsteadiness. The final medical witness for the Crown was Dr. J. O. Mercer, who examined the deceased with Dr. Lynch, Government pathologist. Dr. Mercer described his finding in the course of a very’ lengthy’ examination. He said he agreed with Dr. Lynch that, if the injuries to the head were taken together, the possibility of a fall as opposed to applied violence could be excluded. To the foreman of the jury he said he thought the injuries to "the head would have been sufficient in themselves to have caused, death.

Constable Needham, of Auckland, described having located accused and another man in the public bar of an Auckland hotel on the afternoon of January 23. He asked accused to accompany him outside the hotel, where he told the accused he was making inquiries for a man named Leonard Neiling, of Wellington. Accused said he was Bob Manning, of Onehunga, and that the barman in the hotel would say that was his name. The barman told witness he did not know accused, but had seen him once before in the hotel. Witness left his companion Constable Goldfinch, to keep a watch on accused while witness went to make inquiries and returning two minutes later he found accused and the man with him going down Durham Street West. They were being followed. Witness ran and caught Neiling’s arm and told him he was satisfied that, he was the man being looked for, and that he was arresting him for a breach of probation. At the police station he took possession of Neiling’s clothes. Detective-Sergeant McLennan said the accused, in reply to a question, said he would not make any statement about his movements between noon on January S, and noon the next day. When told of the allegations against him, Neiling had said: “I was not in a taxi, nor at the Carlton Hotel, nor at Oriental Bay with this woman. I did not know her."

Neiling’s explanation of the bloodstains on his clothing was that, he had knocked his hand on a door in a Newmarket hotel, but he could not give the name of the hotel. Accused later, however, admitted that he had been in a taxi and had gone to lhe Carlton Hotel to get some beer.

The last witness for the Crown was Chief Detective Young, who gave evidence regarding an identification parade, held at Wellington Police Station. Counsel for the accused intimated he proposed to call evidence. Accused’s Case Opened Opening the case for the accused. Mr. Leicester pointed out that for a verdict of guilty to be returned the Crown had to prove its theory was the only reasonable one on which the jury could act. He hoped to show not only that the Crown’s theory was false, but, further, there was an alternative one on which they should act, even if it were assumed the accused was the man who was at Oriental Bay' with Mrs. Horton. The defence had alternative theory of how she came by her injuries. The Crown put forward the theory of throttling to account for her death. The alternative theory, that evidence would be brought to support, was that here was a woman, who under the influence of liquor, suggested that she and the man with her find a dark spot in which to drink. While they

were there she wanted to vomit and placed her false teeth down and went down to the water. She was wearing high-heel shoes and the defence suggested that she fell, got cuts and broke her jaw. Mr. Leicester said expert medical evidence would be brought that would be a counter to the theory that death was caused by throttling, and to show also that the facial injuries would not have caused death had Mrs. Horton not had degenerated arteries. Evidence was given by Frances Rose Quintal. The accused, she said, stayed with her and her husband at Karehana Bay, Plimmerton, from the evening of January 9 to January 12. At 9 a.m. he departed for Auckland. In that time he went about openly. Robert Watt, probation officer at Wellington, said the accused was at liberty on probation granted by the Prisons Board at the time of the alleged crime. He had been in jail for breaking and entering. On January 8 and 9 he called at witness' office for money due to him. Expert evidence was being given by ' Dr. A. E. Park to support Mr. Leicester’s contentions, when the ' Court rose.