THE CASE OF BERTRAND.

Grey River Argus, Issue 54, 17 May 1866, Page 3

THE CASE OF BERTRAND.

[ t . (From the Sydney Morning Herald.) ft will he in the recollection of our readers that Louis Bertrand, on the 14th February last, was arraigned for the murder of Henry Kinder, on the Gth October, 1865, and that on Saturday, the 17th, the jury were discharged, being unable to agree to a verdict. On the 22nd February, Bertrand was again put on his trial, and the jiuy, on the following day, convicted Mm of murder. He was then condemned to be hanged, and shortly afterwards he was ordered for execution. Several points in the prisoner's favor wer^raisjd, and these were subsequently argulcl before the full Court. A motion for a new trial was ! madfr upon four different grounds, and the Judge's decided, on the authority of the " Queen v. Scaife," that a new trial could be granted, but they refused the application by a majority (Judge Hargrave dissenting) upon all points but one— that evidence of certain witnesses had (although at express request f||prisoner and his counsel) been improperly read at second trial from Chief Justice's notes of first trial. The Chief Justice and Judge Faucett were of opinion that the irregularity was waived by consent, and therefore not to be taken advantage of by prisoner under such circumstances. Judge Hargrave and Judge Cheeke thought irregularity such as prisoner's consent would not legalise, and that there had beeu a mistrial. On application of prisoner's counsel (Salomons), Judge Faucett withdrew his opinion in order that a new trial might be granted, or leave to appeal to the Privy Council petitioned for. Bertrand was now restored to the position of a prisoner awaiting trial. The Attorney-General petitioned for and obtained leave to appeal to the Privy Council against the decision of the Supreme Court, but in the meantime Bertrand is ordered for triul at the approaching sittings of the Central Criminal Court, to commence on the 14th of May. One of the principal witnesses against Bertrand (Mis Robinson) is now absent from the colony, and. it is intended on tins ground to apply for a postponement of the trial. It is morally certain that this application will be granted, and., then tlie prisoner cannot be tried^&til * the 13th of August next. By the^utg ring mail an elaborate appeal against the decision of the Court, prepared by the Attorney-General, will go home ; and it is expected that the Privy CoTmcil >yilV upon receipt of this appeal, order's" stay of all further proceedings. nntil they have *Ttee«fe^-'-^^P*Efe*ap v 'pe^ l^i»ncl thai this order will arrive beford^Bertrand can be placed upon Iris trial. If tile appeal, which has been 2>repared with great . care by the Attorney-General, and who after a minute examination of the legal points involved in the case believes it will, be sustained, Bertrand will revert to the position which he occupied after Ms conviction and bafore the motion for a new trial was made ; and of course could be executed on any day that the Minister (Colonial Secretary) might appoint. But even in the event of the order of the Privjg Council not arriving in time to preventr the prisoner having a third trial, and should lie be tried and acquitted, and even discharged from custody, and after that the decision of the Privy Council comes out sustaining the appeal, he would revert to tfle position of a convict attainted ; he would be liable to be arrested, wherever he might be, and executed. Such are some of the leading features of tMs remarkable case.