EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE

Chronicle (Levin), 10 November 1948, Page 5

EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE

Press Association)

Chief Juslice's Ruling At Murder Tuai

(Per

WELLINGTON, Nov. 10. .Consider-ation • of the adimissibiiity or •otherwisq _ of 'evidence by two defe.ctives •whieh it Was proposed to ! call for the Crown caused the sus- ' pension of the public hearihg in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon of the charge of the murder of Mrs. Katherihe Cranston on Mount Victoria on September 26, against Edward Ray Horton. v Argument on the point was conducted in chambers before the trial Judge, Sir Humphrey O'Leary, by Mr. W. H. Cunniiigham for the Crown and Mr. A. J. Mazengarb for accused, who was also present. His Honour announced to the jury upon the resuhiption of the trial today that he had ruled the 'evidence to be a'dmissible. 1 - Detective-Sergeant F. G. Scott, on resuming his evidence following his Honour's ruling as to the admissibility of his further evidence, said that the police had 110 definite suspicions whatsoever that Horton was connected with the murder when he was arrested on the Monday night for vagrancy. Horton was suspected o'f murder when the bloodstained clothing was recovar- } ed from the People's Palace on the 1 Wednesday night. He was ques1 tioned then upon his actual moveIments on September 26 and the ■bloodstains on his recovered clothing. The explanation given by accused to Constable Naylor was found to be false, said witness. Detective-Sergeant Knapp was with witness when he told accused that they were making inquiries in connection with the murder of Mrs. Cranston, continued Detective 'Sergeant Scott. He was given the ' usual warning. The first matter 1 mentioned was Horton's movements that Sunday. Horton said it was a matter for the police to prove thao his explanation of his move1 ments on the Sunday was untrue. Accused ■ admitted that the clothing recovered from the People's Palace was his. "I asked him if he was prepared to give us an explanation of the bloodstains on his clothing and he asked for an hour to think it over," continued witness. "Afier accused had had lunch, he said to Detec1 tive Sergeant Knapp, 'I wouldn't ' b well tell you anything about 1 it, but will tell him,' turning to me. ®He then told me of his movements 011 the Sunday in connection with the murder." Horton, from the dock: That's not coprect. Witness said then that he took a statement from accused on a typewriter after repeating the customary warning. As witness was about to produce the statement in eourt, accused called out, "It is not mine. You wrote it yourself." Witness continued that although the accused would not sign the statement, he initialled three typing alterations and wrote, "I have read this and it is true. I will sign it later." The statement, which had been produced in the Lower Court, was then read. Witness, under cross-examina-tion, said that Horton was in custody from the Monday and was charged with the murder at 1 p.m. on Thursday. Horton had been under restraint since the age of 10 and had had only a few months' fiberty since 1943. He knew Horton had been examined by a psy'Chiatrist and his inteiligenee quotient was 81! At the age of about 12 he was recommended to a schooi for backward children. To his Honour, witness said that when he questioned Horton on the Thursday he had no idea whatsoever of the psychiatric reports. Horton had appeared to be quite rational and to have a complete understanding of what was going on. He was quite normal. Mr. Mazengarb did not call any evidence for the defence and the Crown Prosecutor, Mr. W. H. Cunningham, began his final address

at 10.35- a.m. and concluded it 10 minutes later. He briefly traversed the evidence in addition tp informing the jury that in law it w^s sufficient evidence to have accused's "own statement of guilt for a jury to convict. •'The statement admitted is a very circumstantial- account indeed of his movements, and could only have been given by the jnurderer himself," added counsel. "I ask that you find a verdict of guilty and so shoot home to this man the perpetration of the ,yilest and most atrocious murder in the history of New Zealand. Mr. 'Mazengarb sai'd the jury might wonder why he was appearing to defend Horton upon the , charge. "Only in British coun[tries can a man be provided with i counsel- by the S'tate." He said: "The same law requires that he be given -a fair trial, a British trial." There was only the statement admitted last in evi'dence to eonnect Horton with the murder, he continued, If Horton had eommitted the crime, how was it that there was no mention of bloo'd on his hands when he boug'ht the sweets in the shop ^shortly after the time of the crime There had been evidence that the murderer's hands must have been covered with bloo'd. As to his clothes, how was it that Horton himself had asked that his clothing be brought to the Police Station if he had a guil'ty knowledge? Counsel said that there was a conflict of evidence concerning the time at which Horton was wearing Hellyer's blue bell-bottom -trousers. No connection had been made by Dr. Lynch between a Sample of the soil from the scene of the crime and accused's shoes. A vital absence in the Crown case, he said, was fingerpnn't evidence, although the murderer must have left fingerprints on the bottle. However, if the jury accepted the statement as true, counsel wanted to draw attention to the complete absence of both premeditation and motive, Insanity had not been plea'ded 'because Horton was not insane in the legal sense. He> was mentally retarded. Quoting from an authority, Mr. Mazeng.arb siiggested that accused might be deemed to suffer from moral insanity as 'described by ,the authority. Dr. Lynch had considere'd the attack as the act of> . a maniac. Violation and desecration of the dea'd or a dying J30dy was surely one which would suggest to the jury that at the most its verdict should be "guilty, but insane." • His Honour then oegan summing up. N The case is proceeding.