MOUAT SENTENCED.

Hokitika Guardian, 2 September 1925, Page 4

MOUAT SENTENCED.

JESTICE REED’S COMMENT. The last incident in the two long trials of .Mount, for the killing of his wife, happened at 10.30 a.in. yesterday, when he was placed in the dock to receive sentence. “Bring forward Frederick I’eber Mount.” the Registrar of the Supreme Court said, after common jurymen had I icon sworn in for the civil sittings. There was an interval of a few minutes, during which a fairly large crowd in the Court waited in silence. Mount then stepped into the dock, and faced the Judge. Mount showed mo signs whatever of emotion. Ho kept his eves fixed on tin: .Judge while sentence was passed. lowering them only when, at the <nd of His Honour's remarks, lie heard the words: “The sentence of the Court, is imprisonment with hard labour for seventeen years.” The Registrar, addressing Mount, and using the customary words, said: “Have you anything to say why sentence should not be passed on you according to law?” COEXSKL’S SUBMISSION*. “I am afraid T find very great difficulty in addressing your Honour on behalf of the prisoner.” Mr Thomas thei. said, “especially a.s 1 realise that your Honour must have given deep consideration and thought to the sentence you will inflict. Nevertheless there are one or two things I should say fo the Court. “The prisoner was accused of mur-' doi ITo was found guilty of manslaughter. If your Honour pleases, that conviction of manslaughter expressly negatives any premeditated intent.. The reason for that finding is difficult to see. perhaps, but the jury must have felt that there was an al>Milctc lack of motive, and must have based their verdict on the very excellent relationship between the prisoner and his wife during many years. It is litle short, of extraordinary how witness alter witness for the Crown went into the witness-box and spoke well of the prisoner and of the relationship lietween him and his wife. If there was any witness who would fee! sore and vindictive about the case, it was Mr .f. li. Merrett, Mrs Ah.nut's brother, hut even he, in his fairness all through the trials, spoke well of the prisoner, and said that as far as he know they were a happy couple. T submit that that must bo taken into consideration, alien sontence is imposed.

“Eurtber. I submit that, although the prisoner is liable to the penalty for ilie crime of manslaughter, he is also entitled to the benefits. In other words.- I snv this with the greatest respect for the Court -the punishment meted nut to him should lie for manslaughter. a crime committed without premeditated intent, and not indirectly for the crime of murder. “The case lias caused a great deal ot excitement. controversy and talk throughout the country, and it is difficult for all of us to get (lie case in d- proper perspective; but T oarnestlv ask your Honour with all flic power T have not to take any notice whatever (.<■ the prisoner's actions after tlio killing, and on that- I have no comment to ii."s'. This man should b” sentenced tor the killing alone, and m. for wlmt he may have done afterwards. I ask you to treat him with MI the Irnien y and clemency in vour power, consistent with justice.” THE SENTENCE. Mr Justice Reed s'.id : - “After a protracted trial, comhndwith tin* greatest care, at which volt were most ably defended, the jury Imvo unanimously do idol that you are guilty of the death i f your wife. '! lie jury Ims taken a merciful view of thr situation, and have convicted you of manslaughter. They could have round ycoi guilty of murder. “In reducing lb)' crime to tnauslniicliter they would no doubt attar 1. importance to certain features 1,. tpc case to which their attention was directed. They were entitled to infer that the etiino wa- unpremeditated. and was committed in the heat of I >:i.. -i,.; i. The grounds upon "huh they were iu-tilied in so inferring may lie .-linrtly slated a- follows : - “(I' That the total amount ol Mood found ipio u tlio blanket... -licet and pillow, estimated by ole- expert al one tea-poonfiil. entitled l hem to infer that no deadly weapon had been used, bill that death was caused by the oxer, is,, of your brute strength oil this frail '.'oman. “(l That there appeared to be no motive fur the crime. ■■■.2) That all the evidence includin'. that of your wife's brother, went to show that you Imd lived together oi, alfoeliunate terms. “( I> That the last- evening was spent in a friend’s house and that both of you were in good spirits and pei feetly happy when you went home. “I fat ing arrived at tho conclusion that the crime was unpremeditated, tin cause nt a sudden quarrel could lie inferred from one of your statements to the police, in which you said;

“ ‘.My wife ami 1 remained (at .Mrs Prosser's) till 10.30 nr LI p.m. (hi arrival at our house I told her in the liedrooiu that the cheque she gave Mrs Wurlow for rent would not he passed as .Mr Sumpter, Oamaru, who was collecting my outstanding tit counts, had not paid any money in or sent a cheque. She said: “Where is all the money? You have squandered too much and now we are down. Why did you not tell me before?” So 1 said I did not care to do so. At this time we went both in hod. She asked me where r had squandered the money. I told her it had gone travelling about, also yourself had spent a good -deal Christchurch. Wellington. Palmerston Xorth and Feilding when your were awav. After this I said: “Well, we will have to make a fresh start. You and I can see .Mr Warlow and arrange with him.” W<- then said good-night and wont to sleep.’

“They were entiled to infer that in that, statement you stepped at the critical point and that mutual rcerminations went on until something sal'.' to you by your wife provoked you ami caused you to lose control of yourself and you battered the unfortunate woman to death. There was "r, evidence to show what that provocation was or whether it was of such a nature as, in the words of the statute, ‘would have deprived an ordinary person of the power of selfcontrol.’ “From that fact there was no evidence that you were a man possessed of an unusually violent temper, the evidence rather tending the other way. the jury were entitled to take a merciful view, and infer that the provocation came within the words ol the statute. You alone know whether that view is justified, “You are liable to imprisonment for life hut I do not propose to inflict that sentence. After mature consideration of the whole of the facts o' the ease fam forced tp the conclusion that your sentence must he. not only substantial, hut also severe. The sentence of the Court is imprisonment tfith fiard labour for Seventeen vears,”

STRONG COMMENT. VIEWS OF “THE PRESS.” It isi not our practice (states the Christchurch “Press” of Tuesday) to satisfy the public taste for horrors by reporting at length the tales of tragedy and moral squalor which eorno before the Courts, or to comment upon them from our pages. But we have re [Kir ted the trials of F. P. Mount very fully, because it- quickly became apparent that this case would have some importance as a test of tho attitude of a common jury towards an unusual body of circumstantial and imperfect evidence ; and wo refer to tbe filial judgment to-day because it is unusual and surprising. The man was charged with murder, and in the opinion of most people the evidence was insufficient to exclude all doubt concerning the. prisoner's guilt. Tho jury, however, appears to have thought otherwise. for it found that the man did kill his wife, although it shrank from giving a. verdict of murder. The prosecuting barrister, and the Judge in his summing-up offered the jury the alternative of returning a verdict of manslaughter, explaining that it was the actual circumstances attending the act of killing which would decide the nature of the act in the eyes of the law. The jury—perhaps very gratofuly—took the opportunity thus given to it to return the less grave verdict. Xow. it is quit)” clear that there was not a. particle of evidence of any kind available concerning the actual circumstances attending the killing of the woman ; but the jury, ns tbe Judge poimjed out, was entitled to imagine anything it pleased from such foreign evidence—and all the evidence was foreign to the cardinal fact—as wm ; available to il. AYo are afraid, however. that mosl people will be inclined to fancy that the jury acted on the principle of the bench of Wellington ,T. P.’s who once fined a man £5 for kissing a lady in a crowd and informed him that lie was vorv lucky, in the! tliov could have fined him £lO il they had felt sure that lie was t-lie man who did it. If tiie jury’s decision was rather strange, the Judge's sentence was hardly less so. II is Honour knew nothing of the circumstances immediately attending Mount's act. and tie do not suppose he was informed as to what the jury inferred enneening those circumstances, lie was therefore hardly in the best position to judge well what the penalty ought to he. For in practically every case ol manslaughter all the circumstances are clear nod proved, and a .fudge can easilv decide whether the sentence should lie nominal. or light, or snlistanfial or severe. In ibis case the Judge, on the ground, apparently, that a very heavy punishment must be inflicte-cl on a man who kills bis wife in a sudden passion, imposed a sentence of scveuleen years’ imprisonment. Why the sentence should not, have been, 15 years, or 2!) years, or imprisonment for lile. nobody knows. The veridet and the .sentence maw be just, but if so. I bey are just by accident. We have all been nccu-lom-od for so long I > regard the jury system as the ino-1 perfect of institutions that it, is a little disturbing to Oik! that, it can lead to this rather unsatisfactory result.