THE WAIN CASE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 995, 14 July 1883, Page 4

THE WAIN CASE.

The Wain case was concluded yesterday, the jury bringing in a verdict of “Guilty,” but recommending the prisoners to the mercy of the Court. At the time they returned after their retirement, which extended over about an hour and twenty minutes, the Courthouse was crowded. Neither of the prisoners appeared to be affected by the result; the calm demeanor which they have borne throughout the trial remaining unchanged. They were remanded for .sentence until Monday. The recommendation for mercy was ■ based on the ground that probably the prisoners did not fully realise the probable result of their conduct. During the summing up in Wains’ case his Honor said—What you have to determine is, whether the death of the child was caused or accelerated by the culpable or criminal neglect of duty or by the wrongful acts on the parts of either or both of the prisoners ; and in order to convict either of the prisoners you must be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the death was caused or accelerated by the culpable acts or omissions of that prisoner. The learned counsel for the defence has just told you that you have to find not only that there was neglecj, but criminal negligence. That, probamy; Js so, but what criminal negligence is is a question entirely for the jiiiy.' Criminal negligence need not amount to any intention to kill or inflict serious injury upon the individual, because if there was any intention to kill or inflict serious injury and in consequence of such intention and following upon such intention there was a breach of duty, that would be more than manslaughter, it would be murder. Before going further into the subject I would repeat the caution which the learned counsel for the defence very properly put before you, namely, that you must take great care to put away from your minds any prejudice against the accused. Of course, it is impossible for you to have escaped reading all about this case, and probably you have formed some opinion on it. You rriust, Kdwever, try to divest yourselves of any opinion so formed, and to look upon the evidence only; and apart from the risks to which you are exposed from the matter having been so long a subject of discussion, there is a peculiar risk in all cases of this peculiar kind, and I will show you what that is. It is that when we hear of a child having been ill-treated, we naturally and properly feel intense indignation that a child should have been so ill-treated, but that very naturalandproperfeelingmay,unlessyou take care, lead you into error, because what you have to determine is not only whether the child has been ill-treated and abused, but whether beyond all reasonable doubt you can trace the death of the child at the time it did die to such ill-treatment. Of course the process of reasoning which will enable you to determine whether if can be so connected or not, will not be in the least assisted by the very natural feeling of indignation of which I have spoken. You must not suffer yourselves, therefore, to be blinded by this very natural feeling in considering what is of course the most important point in the case, viz., whether the death can be traced to the ill-treatment in question. His Honor Judge Williams, in reply to a remark by counsel for defence, took occasion to say—“ I think that the (evidence excludes all reasonable doubt ' that the death of the deceased was caused by anything else than the conduct of the prisoners. That is the view I form from the evidence. It may be that onfe is riot justified in forming it but that is the view I have taken, and I can say so now that the jury have given their verdict.” With regard to the legal point raised, his Honor said his present feeling was that it should not be reserved, but he would decide on Monday.