MOUATT’S PETITION REJECTED

Hokitika Guardian, 25 June 1930, Page 6

MOUATT’S PETITION REJECTED

INSUFFICIENT GROUNDS

RE-OPENING OF MURDER CASE SOUGHT.

AUCKLAND. June 23

Thu petition to the Executive Council of Frederick Peter Mount, of Christ'' church, at present serving a term of seventeen years-’ imprisonment in Mount Kihui Gao! for manslaughter, for alterm,lively, the quashing o'f his eonvietion a pardon, or the re-opening of the ease has failed, according to the advice received this morning by his solicitor, Mr R. E. N. Matthews.

Commenting on the decision of the Executive Council, as conveyed in a letter from Sir Thomas Sidev, Attorney General and former Minister of Justice. YU Matthews stated that the matter would not he dropped, as he hoped eventually to establish Ylouat’is innocence. Sir Thomas Sidev said

“(1) I caused the representation made in the petition and the evidence in support of the matter to he gone into fully. I have obtained reports from the Solicitor-General, the Crown Prosecutor at Christchurch and the Commissioner of Police. J have also had the advantage of ascertaining the views of the Judge who presided at the trial. As a result of a careful conjunction with those reports, I regret that I am unable to recommend the Governor-Gcneral-ili-Counoil to accede to the prayer of the petition. The matter came before the Executive Council recently and they decided not to make anv such recommendation.

GIVES; HIS REASONS

“(2) It is not usual to- state the ‘ reasons for such a refusal, but. as you have apparently given the matter very careful consideration and have not been able to discuss the different questions with the prisoner at the trial or the Crown Prosecutor at Christchurch. T j think it proper to make an exception in the present case and to comment I on some of the grounds put forward in support of the application “(3) So far as the argument against the sufficiency of the evidence adduced at the trial contained in one of the affidavits is concerned, it is to he noted that any insufficiency mighthave been made the subject of an application to the Court 'of Appeal foi a new trial under section 416 of the 'Times Act, 1908. The able and experienced counsel for the prisoner, no doubt, considered the making of such an application, and after fully weighing the whole of the circumstances, decid- | ed not to make it. So far as the evi- ' deuce adduced is open to criticism, it was very minutely and fully examined by the counsel-.for the accused at the j trial. Amongst''other things, the difficulties in the way of disposing of the body by fire were fully stressed.' and therefore the affidavit of Professor F. P. Worley breaks no new ground. “(4) As far as the evidence of Messrs. Holland and Hunter a.s to their ■having seen Mrs Yloiiat alive after the date of her alleged death is concerned, the statements of these two witnesses were in the possession of the police, and were made available to the counsel for the accused at the trial. He de- j cided, however, that this evidence was j ; worthless and did not desire them j called. £ “(5) The identity of the woman who called at R. Hannah and Co.’s shop : has been established. Tt was not Mrs Ylount. Ylr William’s identification is | ' miite unsatisfactory, and in any case j it is contradicted by that of another | witness, who saw the visitor. *

■ -‘QUITE INCREDIBLE.” | p “(d) Mrs Prosser’s evidence is quite (> inorodidle. She was I'nii aware of the f facts which slie now discloses. She had 1 'ample opportunity of stating them ; p either to the Crown Prosecutor or to the counsel for the accused, hut gave j 1 no indication of them at the trial or 1 1 for a long time thereafter. Moreover. | 1 luring the trial she showed an evident | ’ bias in favour of accused, which would 1 have led her to furnish tins informa-j ' (ion if it had been in her recollection, j 1 Then her daughter’s evidence is app-1 nrontly a mere reproduction of her own. j 1 Moreover, the Crown Prosecutor says Hie statement of Mrs Prosser that she merely answered questions is absurd, because all the statements for the prosecution were taken or supervised by Detective-Sergeant Gibson, one of the most honest and competent members of the Detective Force in the country. 1 am quite certain that any facts elicjt- | f’d by Detective-Sergeant Gibson in favour of the accused would have been embodied in the statement of the witness 1 DEXT] E rcATI OX QI’FSTI ON. (7) Mrs Brown lias been interviewed by the police, who state that she is weak mentally and is a quite unreliable witness. 'Mrs Wilson, at whose house Mrs Brown is supposed to have seem the late Mrs Mouat after her death. | denies that Mrs Mount was there, and gives the name o>f the person who came ’n while Mrs Brown was at her hoflsc. incident of Mrs Harrison and Mins Andrews is not of value. The incident is supposed to have happened while the trial was in progress. Tf they had any confidence in their own identifiea-l lion they would have made a state-j mont at the time. Their own statemi t« seem to show that they are quite uncertain as to who the person g -was. t 1 “(8) Mr Wnrlow’s evidence as to the finding of other human hones in the vicinity is so vague as to he worthless if is true that skull and sso efhmo j

It is true that a skull and some fossil

hones were found in the vicinity, but these matters were before the jury at file trial.

“(D) .1 do not desire you to have the impression that I have purported to cover all the arguments adduced by you or your client.or all the facts about which there may lie some controversy. I desire in this letter to deal only with the main contentions put forward by you. I have, however, carefully considered the whole oi the relevant facts and haw obtained most comprehensive reports in relation to them. In the result ! have came to the definite opinion that no sufficient grounds have been shown for taking such action as is asked in the petition.”

HISTORY OF THE CASE

Mount was convicted in the Supreme Court, Christchurch, oil August 24. I£2), of the manslaughter of his wfe, and was sentenced by .Mr Justice Adams to seventeen years imprisonment. Previously a jury which tried tin 1 case had failed to reach an agreement, and it was at a second trial that the conviction was entered against him The case presented many unusual features. The Crown alleged t .at Mouat had murdered his wife at their home in Rockford Road, St. Martins, and then disposed of the body by liurn’ng it. Evidence of a sensational character was given.

The jury at the second trial 'acquitted Mouat of the charge of murder, but ’ ••might in a verdict of manslaughter. Since the trial, statements are alleged to have been made by several persons that they have' seen Mrs Mouat; and a relative of the. prisoner was responsible for organising the petition for a rehearing of the case in order that fresh c-idencc might be presented. Mr C. S. Thomas was counsel for Mouat at the time of bis trial, but a firm of Auckland solicitors lias bad charge pf the net • (4 on.

After the duse now r-nee of Mrs 'Y'unt. Mouat went mto hiding. There was a sensati-im’ tor him lastfor several d n ”\ He was found in a brick-bi'e at F-"lsborough, a place from which he was able to see his home.