CHARGE OF MURDER.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1210, 19 August 1911, Page 5

CHARGE OF MURDER.

THE CASHEi, STREET MYSTERY JACK FOUND NOT GUILTY. HE-ABRESTKD FOR ALLEGED I'EKJUKY. (By Telenraph-Prcsa Association.) ■ Christchurcli, August 18. Harry Alexander Jack was before tho Supremo Court to-day, charged with tho mnnlcr, on R'bruiiry 7, of Ethel May Bradley. Evidence was led by tho Crown Prosecutor, Mr. Stringer, K.C., to much tho same effect as that given at previous sessions of tho Court, when Walter Diehard Sadler was charged with tho manslaughter of tho woman. No evidence was called by the defence, but Mr. Raymond, who with JJr. Cassidy represented accused, argued that thero was no case to go to the jury. After hearing Jlr. Stringer in rc|ily, Mr. Justice DemvUton, addressing the jury, said that as they would doubtless liavo seen, tho Court of Appeal at its last silting had quashed the conviction of Sadler, who was indicted with tho acwised for having murdered tho woman. It was not thought advisable to publish the reasons for the juilKinunt until the present case was concluded, as some of tho observations might prejudice this trial. _ Ho would have been glad to refer to it in disposing of the present opplica«.<m. The ground of tho judgment was chat the evidence taken most strongly against accused did not exclude, as a reasonable hypothesis for the woman's death, the self-administration of poison by her. Iho only difference between the two caws was that, assuming Sadler's evidence to bo true, and there was a great deal of evidftueo directly nwalivins his evidence on its most important point, there was nothing to exclude wlf-administra-te « V% n • s " mwsin S it had been taken wlulo in .Tack's company, as would bo seen when Hie reasons for tho imR -at Court held that there was both motne and opportunity for the woman Ink--1?* h £ r <""' h! *: Ho had made these obsalvations on tho assumption Hint the S?SiIL M , P ? t >.} Ii ! J*" , ,- ns a charge of of Sadler, tlio Crown had disavowed anv intention of so puttin-j it to them. The Crown Prosecutor put in the opening, and ntimated that ho would have put itvto them also, that lie admitted that there had been no evidence to justify ?w \ x n charge. Ho put it as ho had put it in 10,I 0 , °Tf °, f ? a - d l cr ' , thnt if *' l] ™ of th" accused administered it must hare been as an accidental administration of a dru* intended to produce abortion. Of that tiiwo was not the slightest evidence. He preferred, -However, to put his direction on the ground taken by the Court o£ Appeal that there was not proof of what tho Jaw called tho corpus delicti, that was the lad that the poison was administered herself, Tjntil such evidence was produced, either by direct evidence of administration by another, or by such clear indirect evidence as would-exclude any otlier reasonable hypothesis, including of course the hypothesis of self-administra-tion, an accused person could not bo called on to answer tho charge. Ho therefore directed the jury to find a verdict of not guilty. Addressing prisoner, his Honour said he was bound to point out that ho would urobabl.y bo charpl with another offence 01 which ho would hear of later Tho jury, without leaving tho'bos, returned a verdict of not guilty Jack, immediately after tlio case, was if iSJ. y cctive mhr ™ a &n &