THE CASHEL STREET MYSTERY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1132, 20 May 1911, Page 5

THE CASHEL STREET MYSTERY.

CHARGE AGAINST W. R. SADLER. THE VERDICT. GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER. AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW TRIAL. (By Telegraph-Press Association.) Christohurch, May 19. Tho trial of Walter Richard Sadler, charged with the murder of Ethel May Bradloy on or about Tuesday, February 7, at Christehurch, was continued at the Supremo Court to-day. The caso for tho Crown concluded yesterday, and when the Court resumed counsel for accused said he did not intend to call evidence. Counsel then addressed tho jury at length, the speeches lasting all ths morning. His Honour, in summing up, said the caso was a very serious ono, even upon tho loss sorious aspect now taken by the Crown. Tho jury must have 'read and hoard a great deal about tho caso. Ho asked them to dissassociato from their minds anything they had heard ontside of tho Court's four walls.. Out of twenty-five witnesses for the Crown only three had been cross-examined. They must draw their own inference from this. The defence had tried to inako .out.that tho evidence of these witnesses was of very little worth. He said tho evidence had been of very material value. As tho sergeant and constable'had searched at 2 o'clock on tho morning in question it was fair to assume that the body had not been thero then.

Dr. Symes's Evidence. Ho took exception to the attitude of counsel for the defence in making the statemont that Dr. Symes was employed by the police in these matters, ihat Dr. Symes should como into Court prejudiced in favour of tho police was an innuendo that ho (his Honoiy) was surprised to hear from learned counsel, who was noted for his fairness. There must bo a public medical officer 111 circumstances such as those of tho present Ase. Dr. Symes had apparentlybeen fair in his evidence, and had been extremely careful in not being driven Into making positive assertions. The attack of learned counsel on him had been quite unjustified. Tho jury must consider whether an embolism was likely to havo occurred. His Honour sketched Dr. Symes's evidence. Dr. Symes, in'cross-examination, had said he was quite-satisfied death was duo to prussic acid, and that tho arterial system was not degenerative. Ho had also been satisfied that owing to tho general condition of the girl death could not havo occurred through the bursting of a blood-vessel, and it was most unlikely to have occurred through an embolism. A great point had been made that Dr. Symes had not examined the arteries of the brain. ' If only to meet cross-examination, it would have been far better for Dr. Symes to have done so. Iu any case the evidence of the doctor had been positive and definite. He bad said that it was impossible for anything to have been wrong with the. arteries of the, brain. He had had no" doubt she died from prussic acid ing. Then thef , e T was 'Mr.'-' Bickerfcon's" evidence. Mr. Bickerton was a scientific nmii. He had smelt prussic acid in tho stomach, and had made a careful analysis. - Independent of his analysis, Mr. Bickerton had arrived at tho conclusion that deceased' had taken a fatal dose of prussio acid, owing to the appearance- of the stomach. That evidence had been unchallenged, and not criticised. This scientist had explained that discrepancy between the amount found in the stomach and tho fatal dose had volateliscd. Finding those two gentlemen agreeing that, a fatal dose of prussic acid had been administered, thoy were driven to the conclusion that this was so. Could they entertain theories of counsel for prisoner, and consider these two gentlemen were not telling the truth? Assuming, therefore, that the woman had died of prussio acid (if they had doubt on that question that would end the case), they came to Sadler's connection with the woman's death. Sadler's second statement and ovidenco at the adjourned inquest had only been mado on oath after his false statement, and only when the evidenco was going against that statement. His Honour sketched Sadler's evidence.

The Caso for tha Crown. Tho caso for the Crown was that there had been no intentional administering ofpoisou, but that it was unintentional. If the Grown satisfied the jury that it had been administered by prisoner, Ihoygb unintentionally, it was manslaughter. The first story of Sadler's was, on its face, admittedly full of falsehoods. That of itself, of course, was not proof of guilt. Assuming tho second stun' to he true, the actions of jack and Sadler could he the. natural shrinking from being involved in tho case They must not judge a man iu tho 'abstract sense. To an innocent man however, it was a most cowardly and 'senseless thing to do. If prisoner were innocent, it was one not reasonably likely to be adopted. Howover, they must look at it from their point of view. Counsel for the Crown said it was not only improbable by itself, but inconsistent with the true facts Let them consider the facts .alleged for the Crown. Hi 3 Honour summarised tho evidence ot certain witnesses as to their seeing: Jack meeting Ethel Bradley alter her waiting for him about half an hour. Of course the jury_coud assume that this woman was not Ethel tfraitloj.

"A Very Important Witness." Then there was evidence of a very important witness Brown. Ho saul that about 8.45. he saw a man with a ladv, dressed in dark clothes They LL n J him bv and ho saw them go .'nTsir's'shop, and Jack returned to tho Zetland a few minutes after hv himself Ho then remained with Jack for some little time. Counsel for prisoner had suggested that this witness was wrong by three-quarters of an hour as to seeing Jack and the woman. It was for the jury to assume whether witness was right or wrong. His honesty had not been questioned, and he had Given his ovidenco smartly and clearly. In answer to his Honour, Mr. Russell said that what he suggested was that the girl met Jack twice. His Honour, continuing, said that it they accepted Brown's evidence, Jack must have left tho girl and gono away, ji was verv difficult to imagino that Jack had left' tho girl in a dying condition and passed some time in a casual fashion at the hotel. It was furthermore inconsistent with Sadler's own evidence. ■ None of tho witnesses had seen him take liquor away from the hotel. Brown had definitely said that it was close to ten when Jack loft tho hotel. That, of course, was important when they came to tho question of time. If they believed this witness's evidence there was nothing to suggest that prior to going into Sadler's shop sho whb on tho point of expiring, as appeared from Sadler's story. If tho jury were satisfied that Sadler's story was untrustworthy, they must ask why was it untrue. In his second statement Sadler purported to make a clean breast of tho whole matter.. If they were satisfied the woman did not come into tho shop in a dying condition, as stated by him, why did he tell an untruth when purporting to tell the truth? The

case for tho prosecution rested first on the point that tho girl died from tho effects of prussie acid; secondly that Sadler's stoi.v was untrue If they were not satisfied as to that, there was no case against prisoner. Tho Defence Theory. The defence had advanced the theory that she had obtained prussie acid by mistake, but if she had entered Sadler's shop before taking poison, idler's story was untrue.. Therefore, they had to consider whether she took poison before. Brown said she appeared to bs walking all right. Of course the girl was unhappy in her work. Ihen slio was pregnant, and Jack refusing to marry her on hor request she took poison in desperation. But nothing on that point had been said by either Jack or Sadler. Then there was tho point raised that she had taken poison secretly in Jack's company. Were tho jury satisfied that the woman had taken poison? Furthermore, they must satisfy themselves whether she had taken pcison before or after entering tho shop, for thereon rested tho case for tho prosecution. If they were satisfied that tho poison was taken in the shop, then thoy must take into consideration the point whether one or both of the two prisoners administered it' to her. If tho suggestion was that abortion was to bo tried in an unusual fashion by a drug, and not by an instrument, there was no reason for Jack to bo thero at all. Again, thero was no reason why, if hydrastis was to be administered, that they should go to tho shop. It would be assumed that the woman would bo taken to tho shop only_ for physical alortion, which acted rapidly, but there was no reason to take her to tho shop, to administer- a drug. Ho could not understand her being taken to the shop.for that purpose. A verdict of guilty of manslaughter was tho only ono the jury were asked to find. They must bo satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that prussie acid had boon administered to her before entering the shop, and if administered in tho shop that it was beyond the shadow of doubt on the part of Sadler. If they woro not satisfied. on . this point tho case for tho Crown must fail.

The Forsman Asks a Question. The foreman of the jury asked who ther it was possible for anyone feeling ill in the street to procure sufficient; prussic acid to fill tho bottlo Mr. Russell had shown them. Dr.- .Symes, on being questioned on tho point, said he did not think so, because it would not be a medicinal dose unless she could satisfy the chemist. To Air. That quantity of oil of bitter almonds could cause death. Mr. Russell said any chemist may sell oil of bitter almonds without the poison book being signed and a witness produced. His Honour: That is a serious statement. Mr. Russell said it was not covered by the Poisons Act. Mr. Stringer considered tho Poisons Act covered tho selling of oil of bitter almonds. Mr. Russell said ho had his authority from a chemist. Dr.; Symes said ho had never heard of a chemist selling it without the usual precautions. Mr. Stringer considered that in order to havo the matter cleared up Mr. Bickerton should be re-called, to say whether, if deceased had taken oil of bitter almonds, tho oil would be left in the stomach. Mr. Bickerton (re-called) said he did not think so. Tho oil would not volatilise, and there was no trace of it in deceased's stomach.

Vordlct of Manslaughter. :.iThejury retired at 2.85 and after exactly an . hour's retirement. brought in a- verdict of guilty of manslaughter, with a strong recommendation to mercy. Mr. Russell applied under Section 446 of the criminal code for leave to apply to the Court of Appeal for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. He submitted that, taking tho facts that had been proven against the prisoner, the verdict was against the weight of evidence. There was no evidence brought in to justify a verdict of manslaughter. . His Honour said there had been a strong case of suspicion against accused. The particular act the Crown had relied upon, it was alleged, was open to question. He had left the matter to the jury without any direct opinion of his own. Mr. Stringer said the caso presented such features that he would throw no obstacles in the way of going before tho Highest Court in tho land. His Honour held that this was tho proper course. There was utter absence of any evidence directly in support of the case for the prosecution theory. Mr. Russell asked for bail. Tho question of murder had dropped out, and tho jury had brought in a recommendation for mercy. His Honour said the crime of manslaughter was a bailable offence, but tho question was whether bail should bo granted to a convicted person. Mr. Stringer said he would not oppose, bail, provided it was substantial. His Honour said it was a peculiar caso throughout. _ He would be very pleased to see it reviewed by a higher Court. Upon his Honour's suggestion, it was decided that counsel should see his Honour later on the question of bail. Mr. -Raymond asked for bail for Jack. Mr. Stringer suggested that Jack's case should stand over till the Court of Appeal had adjudicated on Sadler's case. Ho had no stronger evitlonco to produco in Jack's case than Sadler's. It was decided to hold Jack's case over till the conclusion of the Court of Appeal trial. Mr. Raymond again applied for bail for Jack, who, he said, was not a convicted person. It was decided to leave tho question of bail over till next morning, so that counssl could come to some arrangement in the matter.