THE HALL CASE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1505, 12 March 1887, Page 3

THE HALL CASE.

THE CONVICTION QUASHED Chkktohukoh, March 12. Halls's conviction has been quashed by the Court of Appeal. Later. At eleven o'clock this morning the adjourned sitting of tbe Court of Appeal wa3 held for the purpose of giving judgment In the Hall c»se. — As, on former occa«iong, there was a somavrhat large attendance, the legal profession being well represented. Mr Stringer appeared for the Grown, and Mr C lopmau for the aocused. The Chief Just cc 'eft for the West Coast yesterday morning. The judgment which, as usual, bad been written, was road by Mr Justice Johnstone. Judgen Richmond, Ward and Will' ami alao ocoup't \ coats on the Bench. Before procooding, Mr Justice Johnston stated bfchaif of tho Chief Justice that he ftssonlod to tho decision though not necessarily agreeing with every statement of opinion. The Qaestlono submitted to tho Court were then stated and were do«U wl(h m their order. There wa* vaguonefl3 ao to tho purpose for which the evidence objected to was to be nsed— what it was to prove. The prisoner only was impMcated and, tbeif ore, th < evidence could only hava beon admitted to show tha prisoner's oonneo'ion with the administration of poison. DesJfijn or accident was the next quootlon. Reference waa then made to the ' t we -fold p h t l , that the prisoner administered poison and did so with Intent, and to establish this the oviJence was lot m. Aa proof of Intent the evidence waa admissablo ; for the putpose of proving; gu.lty knowledge tho admission no doubt conetltnted an. exception to the general principle. Reference waa here made to parallol c-.scs, all of which avoided tho Hoe followed m Jho prea^n: case, both ry the bench and bar. The evidence It seemed, was deemed ac ejsiblo only on the aooera! question as to whether tho death was caused by rccidenfc or design. Then came the question whether tho pr>{soniugj of Mrr ida-1 ar,d the death of C.ip f r.»n Cain could be lif.ked togoiher, for the purposes < f < h<s trihl, aa one trani ractlon. It ?ppo?»red to the Court that th rj waa no evidonce cf a design requiring tl.-e death of the two Wan there any other connection needed m the I'cht (if ecieiic?, phiio*' phy or common Betß ? It waa reaßOitbe to infer on these ground* 'hat the human agenoy m t'e two case? was lha tame, but this tnodo r f proof, it was peltled was ln.id nvssible. Palmer'a caße snl others, closely reeonoblinp jhat before the Court, were quoted. Aa to iho third gr und it cou'd not be proper to admit the evidence en <ho prettx*. of showing what t ere the eymptomn following upon the pdmlnimration of a certain poison. Tbe Court, at the rnme time, wbb not disposed to deny that Bomotiuje3 a eerier of Biml'ar rcourrencoa might go to proyo the goilt of a priamer, Ih'-u^h m this c»so the Cjurt saw no such aequercj nnd connection. The strong moral probability waa not the kind of proof exacted ; it was, indeed, that kind of proof which English law lightly rcjaoted. The Court was not cocoerceJ with the popular idea « f failure of jaatio*. It was their duty to see that justice was administered according to law. la conclmion. the opinion was expreFßed that tbe learned Jndgo who fried the case had practically no option m admitting fh9 evidence. No single Judge could have taken upon hiraeolf to refuse the adm'sn'on of such evidanc. For the reibods stated the Court was unanimously of opinion that the ptlaoner ought not to have been convicted.

For continuation of notes sccfonrtliimge.