THE SILVER GRID TRAGEDY.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 508, 18 November 1909, Page 3

THE SILVER GRID TRAGEDY.

THE TRIM,

CASE FOR THE CROWN STATED. THE DEFENCE. Christchurch, November 17 The trial of Arthur John Wilson Roberts, charged with the murder of Alice Edith Newman (the Silver Grid case), began in the Supreme Court to-day, before Mr Justice Dennistou. The gallery of the Court-room was almost fully occupied during the most of the day, among those present being several ladies. The appearance of the prisoner has not noticeably altered since his arrest. Though he is less spruce and dap-per-looking than when he first came before the Magistrate’s Court, his position did not seem to weigh heavily upon him. When he. entered the dock there was a nervous twitching perceptible about his mouth, but this disappeared in the course of a few minutes. Prisoner was permitted to sit down on a seat in the dock. He showed only mild interest in the evidence, only occasionally raising his head and regarding witnesses with a gaze that indicated that their testimony was interesting him. Prisoner pleaded “not guilty,” and was defended by Mr W. J. Hunter. Mr T. W. Stringer, Crown Prosecutor, appeared for the Crown.

The case for the Crown was stated by the Crown Prosecutor, He said that evidence would establish that the girl met her death at the hands of prisoner. _ She had been employed as a waitress at the Silver Grid restaurant, kept by Mr Burns. For some time she had lived with a man named Read, as his wife, and had a child to him. She'had a great many admirers, among them being the prisoner. He evinced very strong jealousy of anyone having anything to do with the girl, and had interfered with people who went out with her. Counsel detailed the visit of prisoner to the Silver Grid on the night of the murder, and the conversation which he had with Warwick. The girl had evidently been shot with a revolver in her own room. Prisoner was not seen to go through the main building after the tragedy, but after using the weapon he could have gone along either of the two corridors and down either of the two fire escapes. The movements of the prisoner before and after the commission of the murder were outlined, and counsel read a letter which accused wrote to Mr Burns, and which contained some important statements. The only possible defence was that; prisoner was not responsible for, his actions, and that he was entitled tobe acquitted on that ground. The onus of proving that, however, rested on the defence, and it was for his learned friend to establish affirmatively that the man was hot responsible. Responsibility for wrong is clearly defined by the the Criminal Code. That was the test that would have to be applied in this case. If the defence set up that prisoner was an irresponsible person—if the defence was that prisoner was labouring under imbecility and disease of the mind to such an extent as to render him incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong —proof of that would have to depend on the facts of the case, and the medical testimony that the defence would be able to produce. In opening for the defence, Mr Hunter submitted that the Crown had • failed to show that Roberts had not left the Silver Grid on the night of the murder, after saying he would see the witness Warwick at 8 o’clock next morning. There was also nothing to show that Roberts had a revolver on him when be was at the Silver GridAnother significant fact was that there was no blood found on prisoner or on his clothes. Further, his- whole conduct was inconsistent

with the commission of a brutal murder. In regard to incriminating letters, it would be submitted that there was no confession contained in the letter, which the constable said prisoner was writing in the Prebbleton Hotel when arrested.' It was simply that of a lad ot suicidal tendencies, and it had reference to his own proposed suicide. These letters were in the prisoner’s possession before the tragedy took place. The evidence was not sufficient to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the prisoner committed .the crime. There was also the defence that prisoner if he did commit the crime, was not responsible for his actions and evidence would be called to show that he had not a reasonable or ordinary degree of mentality. The. evidence for the defence closed to-night. The addresses of counsel will be heard to-morrow.