CROWN PROSECUTOR'S OPENING.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14829, 21 November 1913, Page 7

CROWN PROSECUTOR'S OPENING.

Mr Stringer, in opening, said tho facts of tho case were paiutully simple and should cause tho jury no difficulty. Counsel reviewed briefly the facts of the case. There could, ho said, bo no possible doubt that the accused killed .\lrs Lilley. Whether ho was guilty of murder would depend on legal considerations which would probably be tset up on his behalf. Tho only possible defence was that tho accused was an irresponsible being, and was not liable to bo found guilty on tho charge. That was a defence the onus of setting up and proving which was entirely on the accused. The law that every person was sane and responsible for his actions, unless proved to be otherwise, and therefore presumed that the man was sane and responsible for what he was doing until it was proved by clear and satisfactory evidence that he was not so. Counsel for the accused would, therefore, endeavour probably to .set up that defence, and might call medical evidence in support of such a defence. Although medical theories and legal theories did not at all agree upon the responsibility of persons, the law had laid down tho principlo upon which the jury would have to decide tho case. That principle had been laid.down in the Criminal Code, and was to the effect that every person should be presumed to bo sane at tho time of doing or omitting any act until the contrary was proved, but that no person should be convicted when labouring under imbecility or disease of the mind to such an extent as to render such person incapable of understanding the nature and quality of the act or omission, and of knowing that such act or omission was wrong. In tho present case, the evidence for the prosecution went,a long way to show that the accused was labouring under no such disability, becauso the killing was evidently the result of a plan deliberately laid and carried out by the accused. It showed he was completely capable of reasoning tho thing out and ho did so. He could not tell the jury the motive which governed the accused in inviting Mrs Lilley out on the night in question, but it would be easy to supply a motive. The only possible motive was that accused desired to have improper relations with Mrs Lilloy. Ho was quite capable of understanding tho opportunity afforded to him by the fact of Lilley being away from home, and was quite capable of understanding that it would require a clever and ingenious story to induce Mrs Lilley to leave homo at that time of night with a man who was practically a stranger. He did not suppose that any other excuse would have tempted Mrs Lilley to go out except a call that a neighbour required assistance. The jury would have to bo satisfied that accused came within tho definition. If ho did not then, however painful it might be to the jury, it. was their duty to find accused guilty .