THE MOUAT CASE.

Hokitika Guardian, 28 August 1925, Page 1

THE MOUAT CASE.

THE CLOSING SCENES. JEDGE’S SUMMING UP. Cl I IUSTCH ElK'i I . August ‘27. His Honor, summing up. commented on tlio able wav in which Mr Thomas had presented Mount/s case, and said that the Crown Prosecutor had conducted the Crown's case with absolute impartiality and fairness, not unduly straining any matters, but trying to place the facts before the jury fairly and dispassionately. A trial, his Honor explained, began with the assumption that the prisoner was innocent, and a jury must bo guided solely bv evidence in Court. They must not convict a prisoner unless they were convinced of Ids guill without any reasonable doubt. Direct evidence seldom was procurable in a murder charge. Circumstantial evidence was stronger than direct evidence if a jury could he sine of the facts and if it led to an inevitable conclusion. Tn tlho present ease, his Honor said, doubt had been east on the evidence of the hones by the suggestion that they belonged to Maoris, but Maori hones would not lie buried on the surface, and there would be other parts of the Maoris’ bodies if the place had been a burial-ground. Another point was that the hones had been burnt. Ail Hie witnesses agreed that, apparently, if Mount committed t!ie crime, lie luid wonderful control over himself, as none of them noticed anything peculiar in his manner or appearance after Mrs Mount's disappearance. The evidence as to Mrs Mount’s false teeth was important. One witness gave positive evidence that Mrs Mount had (Doth with green colour on them. Several witnesses gave negative evidence that, they did not. notice the green. A woman was not likely to leave her homo without her lal sc teeth, and if she, had a set in addition to the one in Court, which had no green, the jury must consider whether 1 she was alive, or whether the extra sol had been destroyed. Obviously there would have been much more blood it. in case Mrs Mount had been killed, there was any cutting or chopping. If the jury found that Mount killed Mrs Mount, they could, if they believed if was done under sudden provocation. reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter. There did not appear to he any evidence of motive. Tf there was no evidence of provocation and if he killed her the verdict should he murder. disposal of the body. The foreman asked if the jury could come to a conclusion as to the disposal of the body on its own theory, without evidence to support it. His Honor said the jury were entitled to consider any theory. 'J be (|ilost inn was whether il was possible for (lie body to l.e disposed of in the lime. The Crown had not led evidenec as lo how it was done. Mr Thomas asked bis Honor to direct the. jury that any theory must Ire based tin the evidence. Mr Donnelly said that Mr Thomas's point was untenable, as it was a view from the wrong angle. Ihe jut.r could presume that, the body had been reduced to the holies produced, anti base the assumption on any theory or on no theory. His Honor snfd that he could not direct the jury in any other way than the one he had indicated. .1 ÜBY'S ANNOUNCEMENT. (11l the jury returning at 1.27 a.in., the foreman said that a vender ol manslaughter had been arrived at. Mr Thomas was given leave to raise Ihe ijiiestion whether there was evidence of manslaughter in g” '’> ** u ’ jury. Mount na.s remanded Inr sentence. The fuivmuii said that the jury wished to i-imi|>linit’llt counsel. Conn olucinls and police oil the way in which the trial had liven conducted. Tie jurymen "ere exempted I rum servin' on juries lor two yr;U'. SENTENCE ON MONDAY. Cl iI! IS TCI lUBCII. August. 28. Frederick Peter Mount, found guilty of manslaughter, " ill come up fur sentence mi Monday. His counsel will llicn raise the question of whether Ij l( .re v ,as evident nmnshiughlor to go to a .jury,