The Lottie Ancell Case.

Manawatu Herald, 21 February 1903, Page 2

The Lottie Ancell Case.

The re-trial of T. F. Moore, chemist, of Waipawa, for the murder of Lottie Ancell was conpluded in the Supreme Court late on Thursday afternoon. Mr Justice Edwards, in his summing up, pointed out to the jury that it was quite idle for anyone to suggest that an answer was not required from the prisoner under the circumstances which had been disclosed in that case. It might be said, "No one saw _ it done ”; but if that kind of reasoning were law no murderer could ever be convicted. It was not the custom of a person practising abortion to call in witnesses. The facts in this case called loudly for an answer. Not only the law of the land, but also commonsense demanded an answer and this was the position which his Honor felt quite sure the jury would appreciate. The jury retired at 3.25 p m., and at 5.15 p.m. returned and inquired for instructions. They asked if Lottie Ancell did anything to herself that would not have killed her, and if the prisoner , did something at Waipawa which, coupled with what she herself had done, did kill her should they bring in the same verdiet as if she had done nothing to herself. His Honor said the jury’s verdict in that case must be the same.

At 5.35 p.m. the jury brought in a verdict of guilty of manslaughter, with a recommendation to mercy, the jury being of opinion that deceased might have tampered with herself prior to leaving Napier lu reply to his Honor, counsel for the prisoner said he could urgo nothing further on behalf, of accused with the exception of his extreme old age, the man being 69 years on his last birthday, and the jury’s rider, which he trusted his Honor would taka into consideration.

His Honor, addressing the prisoner, said the offence of which he had been most justly convicted was one of the most serious known in our law, and a severe sentence must necessarily be passed for the sake of a public example. Giving every consideration to the recommendation of the jury, he must, of course, consider the grounds upon which they had made it. Those grounds were no excuse either in the eye of the law or of morality. For the offence that had been committed the sentence of the Court was seven years’ imprisonment with hard labour. The Crown Prosecutor, in answer to counsel for the prisoner, said no doubt the Crown would not proceed further with the other indictments against Moore.

The charges against Mrs Mills (of perjury and being an accessory after the act) were adjourned to next session. She was admitted to bail, herself in £SOO and two sureties of £350 each. Moore, who is almost blind, received the sentence very calmly.