THE MUNN TRIAL

Hokitika Guardian, 5 July 1930, Page 6

THE MUNN TRIAL

JUDGEMENT ON APPEAL.

EVIDENCE RIGHTLY ADMITTED

CONTINUITY OF MOTIVE

I think that in all the circum-

stances of this case the evidence

was admissible for the purpose ol rebutting tbe possible (and, .1 understand, suggested) defence by the prisoner that his wife had taken the poison herself either suisidally or accidentally.

This conclusion was arrived at by tbe Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers,) and was stated by his Honour in a written judgment delivered at Wellington on Tuesday, as to reasons for the Court of Appeal’s decision that the evidence of a son and two daughters of the prisoner by a former wife Was admissable at the trial of Arthur Thomas Munn in Auckland for the murder of his wife. The Court (his Honour the- Chief Justice, Mr Justice Herd man, Mr Justice Reed, Mr Justice Adams, and Mr Justice Ostler) was unanimous,in the opinion that the evidence was admissible. A decision to this effect was g ven last week, and at that time the -Chief Justice intimated that reasons An writing would'be given siibYcci'iieot■ly. . , ; . , .r ,

: COUNSEL’S CONTENTIONS. The judgment of/the Chief Justice states,,that the .chijdrenls evidence was tendered with the object,of showing a persistent course over. a continuous period of several years of - unkind ness, cruelty, and ill-will on the part, of the prisoner towards his late wife. Mr Noi;thcroft (counsel for Munn) had attacked the admissibility of the evidence on the ground that there was no logical association between the facts sought to he proven 1 and type' of crime charged, or, to adopt the language of Mr Justice Kennedy in a case Rex v. Bond, that the prior acts did not, in point of historical and circumstantial connection for inseperahle parts of the transaction the jury had to investigate ‘Counsel had also contended that the Conduct spoken of by the witnesses was so remote© in point of time as to make the,evidence inadmissible. His Honour sai dhe took the true principle applicable in a case of this kind to be that stated by Mr .Justice Kennedy and by Ford Atkinson in a case Rex v. Ball.

CONDUCT WITH MRS STUCK. There was certain evidence adduced to which no objection was, or. could have been taken, and which tended to show that at a later period than that spoken of by the .son and daughters the prisoner was tired of bis wife. In this connection his I-lonour stressed tli.e importance of the fact that about the beginning of October, 1929 four months before the : date.of liis wife’s. death, Munn inserted an advertisement in,the "Auckland “Star” for. a companionable woman with a view to matrimony Tt was further proved that s>s a result of the advertisement the prisbuerbecame involved .in an intrigue with a woman - named Stuck, and that one. ol his 'excuses for this•'conduct' was that his 'wife- had- lost interest In him.

lii these circumstances it appeared to his Honour,- applying-the language of Mr Justice Kennedy," that "the previous relations of the prisoner anil his wife could reasonably be trente.l as explanatory of the conduct of tbe a*cu * ,j d as charged in the indictment, and weio properly admitted to proof as ni'-g----ral parts of the history of the alleged crime for which the prisoner wai on.his trial. And, too, the evidence sought to be given was evidence of previous acts of tbe prisoner to show that he entertained feelings of enmity towards the deceased, and was .evidence not merely of' the' malicious 'mind with which lie. killed; the deceased, but of tbe [fact that he, killed lier. If a prisoner was charged. with the muidci of his [wife, whether the means alleged to have been adopted was poisoning or an act of violence, the, mere fact that on a previous isolated occasion he, had shown violence, towards her in a-.fit of anger might not. be, admissible. But a persistent course of unkind ness, cruelty, and ill-willed was .quite another and different tiling.

PERSISTENT C,OUR SR OF CONDUCT. Mr Nortberoft had contended (hatin as much as the evidence re I erred to a. period as far back as in the case of the daughters of three years before tbe death, and in the cose of the son one year, the conduct sought to be--iven in evidence was, as it were, too stale, and bad therefore no logical con-

said that in his opinion the'"contention,, was not well founded. He could not see that the method of the alleged crime in a case of this kind was material From tbe time when the son left the prisoner’s house the only persons living in the house with the prisoner and his wife ivere twd quite young children of the second marriage. Tf, as was admitted, the evidence challenged would have been rovelant had tlie course of conduct 'extended to a date shortly before the deceased’s death, bis Honour said he could see no reason why the evidence should not e admissible because'the persons giving the evidence were unable in the nature of tbe circumstances to speak of more recent conduct. It the acts sought to be given in evidence were isolated acts there would have been a great deal of force in' Mr Northcroft’s contention, but it" waS' different, be thought, where the evidence tendered V \vas evidence of a persistent'course ol conduct over a period of several years Moreover, there was the publication of the advertisement 1 and the prisoner’s subsequent conduct with Mrs Stuck,, which helped to bridge the* hiatus be-, tween" the time the sotr-left'ithc house and the - deceased’s death, and lie thought, to make relevant the-previous relations between the • prisoner- and his wife.

Regarding the other point raised’at hearing of the appeal- ns to whether certain evidence'was properly excluded at the trial, his Honour sai* that as the members of the Court were unanimous in tbe view""that tbe evidence of the son" and daughter's was admissible, the second question" was not argued. " •

CONTINUITY UNDOUBTED. ITis Honour ATr Justiee Herdman said that as he' had "given his reason for admitting in the Court below the evidence which had 'been under consideration in tbe Court of Appeal and' as nothing had been" broiight to lus notice in tbe course" of the' argument which made it necessary "that" he should abandon or modify tbe opinion be bad already expressed," it was unnecessary for him to do more than state’-that lie was in complete agreement with the views expressed by tbe Chief Justice in his judgment. n In a written judgment."-agreeing with the other members of the. "Court that the evidence was admissible, Mr Justice Reed said that the lapse'" or time since the occurrence spoken of by the children would no doubt, if they were isolated acts, have"-rendered-the admission; of tbe evidence-questionable, but the evidence was directed to show systematic ill-treatment- His Honour" added : “ Tt is linked uji to the tiine of death" hv the evidence" of the advertisement for a companionable woman’with a view to matrimony;" tbe'; priisbiref’s .subsequent intrigue w'itlv"ftne of" the wo niton who rescinded to the advertisement, carried on oven whilst his wife was Jlyiilg, and the callous"’reference to Pis dead wife made, to the arresting"del-' teetives. Tbe continuity o’f'tTve"'motive is-undoubted.”

Their Honours, Mr Justice Adams and Mr Justice Ostler also sh’d thev agreed the evidence was pftfpcrly admitted." '