SUPREME COURT, AUCKLAND.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3600, 25 January 1883, Page 3

SUPREME COURT, AUCKLAND.

Auckland, Yesterday. The case of Airs Hamilton and Priestley has been concluded with the exception of the evidence of Miss Anna Neilson, a sister of Airs Hamilton, who was too unwell to attend, and the Court was adjourned to endeavor to get her evidence. Airs Hamilton's counsel did not call any witnesses on her behalf. The interest taken in the case by the public has been intense, the gallery of the Court being crowded daily by well-dressed women. This day. The evidence in Priestley's defence was closed this morning. Anna- Neilson was called, but she was too ill to appear. Air Cooper then addressed the jury on behalf of Airs Hamilton. He said that the prosecution had failed to prove that Hamilton did not meet his death by a pm'o accident. He characterised the questioning of the prisoner prior to the arrest by the detectives as un-English, and complained of the adverse attitude which the Crown had taken up in respect of the prisoners from the first. They were arrested on the loth of December, and bad been confined in gaol over since, .so that tliey had. been entirely dependent upon the exertions of friends to get up the necessary evidence to establish their innocence. It was the duty of the Crown to bring forward every bit of evidence bearing on the case, irrespective of whether it was or was not adverse to the prisoners; but, instead of doing this, they had only adduced evidence that was favorable to their case. Air Cooper then proceeded to show that the entire fabric of the case for the prosecution rested upon the belief of four medical gentlemen that Hamilton couldnothavcsustained his death by a fall against a bedstead, and that this was but an opinion open to question, inasmuch as Dr. Philson had admitted the probability of the wound being- received from a fall against a bedstead. Mr Cooper also contended that the uninjured state of the dura mater was opposed to the theory of the wound having been caused by a blow, which would necessarily have to be one of excessive violence, and he held that it was quite consistent with the theory of the fall, as were also the alleged statements of the wounded man subsequently rising, staggering about, and talking incoherently.