NEWLANDS MURDER TRIAL.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 2584, 24 May 1923, Page 3

NEWLANDS MURDER TRIAL.

COOPER GUILTY. DEATH SENTENCE PRONOUNCED. , MRS. COOPER INNOCENT OF MURDER. NOTICE. OF APPEAL AGATNST CONVICTION. Wellington, May 2? When the Cooper trial at the Supreme Court, resumed this morning the galleries and the floor of the Court, room were again crowded by interested listeners, many hundreds of late-comers being compelled to content themselves with a less advantageous position outside the building. .. Looking pale and anxious, Cooper and Mrs Cooper entered the dock a few minutes after ten, when Mr Wolford commenced his address on behalf of Mrs Cooper.

HTS HONOUR SUMS UP. His Honour, in summing up, said that although the evidence had gone to great length, the evidence that had a direct bearing on the issue lay within a comparatively narrow compass. They.had now to consider what portions of the evidence were relevant to the main issues. Mucli of the evidence had been given in order that there might be no flaw in the Crown case, and they now knew that, much of that evidence was undisputed. was for the Crown to prove their case, and it. was the Crown’s duty to show that there was no doubt as to the guilt of the male or the female accused. Where there was reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, the accused persons were entitled to it. So far as the actual crime was concerned. it was a charge of murdering M’Leod’s child. They had to he satisfied that M'Leod's child was dead had been murdered, and had been murdered by one or other of the necused persons. A body had been found near the house, but the Crown ease did not depend absolutely upon the identification of the child. They had called technical evidence, to help in clearing the matter up. The Crown liad to establish the corpus delicti, but that did not mean that the body of the murdered person bad to be found. If it was necessary to produce the body, then a murderer might do awav completely with the body. Corpus delicti meant the fact of the crime must he proved. He thought it was fair to treat the case of a very young'child on the ground of n trust-account. Some person takes charge of a'perfectly helpless child, 'hud that person remained responsible for the child. The last person who voluntarily took actual charge of the baby should be able to say what had happened to the child. EVIDENCE AS TO SYSTEM. liis Honour proceeded to refer to the discovery of the M‘Leod child. Coming to the reason for his admission of other evidence regarding a system, he said that was a very important matter, and had been the subject of discussion in the Courts of Appeal in various countries. As the law now stood he thought it was right and proper that he should have admitted the evidence. Commonsense made it advisable that tiie jury should know the whole history of the Newlands case. In Scotland when a man was charged with theft the Crown called evidence to show that lie had been a thief all his life. That was very helpful to the jury, but it was not the English notion of a fair trial. Evidence as to a system of crimes, say in the same week, could be admitted, however, and that was why he had admitted the evidence in tlie present case. It was alleged in the present case that there had been a system, and in his statement in two places, Cooper said that he somewhat systematically udopied the practice of relieving young girls of their trouble. Cooper had had a conversation with •Detective Harold, and had told him that lie had a number oi adoptions, and had laid it down that the names of the adopting parents should not he known. Naturally, the Crown took him at his word, and the purpose of the evidence of system was to show that tne Lister case was a typical one. iiUVV CAME THE BODIES THERE? The jury was noi to convict tne Coopers of killing the Ai’Leod child because it had been proved that ■>,. they killed another child. That was not the object of admitting the evidence of system. Four children were to that hour missing. The hisv lory of those four children had been before the jury. Three bodies had ( been ,,the property at Aewlands, and it was not. possible to definitely identify them. What was the meaning of finding the three . children/ Was it tne kind of thing that could be caused by accident/ It mighi have been easy to explain one, but in the present case there were three. Had there been three accidents'/ There was 40 to 50 thousand medium-sized farms in New Zealand, and on how many would it be likely that they would find tliree bodies of babies / Cooper had suggested that some outsiders had invaded his place, but as far as Lupi and Colder were concerned they had answered the allegation. Cooper had no specific suggestions to make, beyond those, of flow the bodies came to be there. ONUB ON THE GROWN. The evidence in the case affected both Cooper and his wife to a degree which was referred To the jury for their consideration. His Honour dealt with the events regarding the birth of the M’Leod child, if

the identity of the discovered child had not been proved, then they had the fact that Mrs Cooper was the last person seen by a human witness to have the baby. 'I l' onus of proving a murder was always op the Crown. Supposing the storv of the adoption was true, was it likely that tiie people who had adopted the children would be hard-hearted enough not to comp forward when tiie lives of the Coopers were at stake. Cooper had done nothing to help himself. Was it likely that Cooper would withhold the information? The jury’s solemn duty was to decipher the evidence; responsibilitv rested with them. WAS MRS COOPER IMPLI- ' GATED?

So far as Mrs Cooper was concerned, different considerations applied. They had to consider her ease only in the matters that were sheeted home to her. Cooper’s system applied to her, only in a degree to which he would refer. The Crown held that it was no answer for a woman to plead that she had been influenced hv her husband. Tf they thought that there was a sufficient element of doubt as to whether she was a murderess or not then she was entitled to an acquittal. Cooper had Loom the leading figure all through. Tf the female accused were guilty then it was because she knew when she took charge of the M‘Le»d child that there was no motor car waiting to take it away. Tf there was an element of doubt about that, Mrs Cooper should receive the benefit of it. They were to act on evidence, and the evidence alone. At 12.58 o’clock the jury retired to consider its verdict.

THE A T ERDTCT

.JUDGE’S COMMENT. CRUEL AND HEARTLESS MURDER. When the Court resumed at 2.27 the jury returned. Tn reply to the Registrar’s question, the foreman said the jury had found a verdict of guilty against the male accused and not guilty ngaim'l the female accused. There was a slight manisfestniion of applause on the second pronouncement but this was quickly suppressed. “Mrs Cooper, during the trial had been accommodated in a separate dock, but now appeared in the main thick with her husband, a constable and the woman police attendant standing between them. Both naturally displayed the effects of the great strain they had been subjected to when they entered the dock. On the announcement' of the verdict Cooper bowed bis bead and was visibly deeply affected. The woman remained more composed. A deep lmsli prevailed for a moment, then at n word from the Judge, Airs Cooper was removed from the Court.

The Registrar then asked Cooper tf he had anything to say as to why sentence of death should not lie passed upon him. 'flic accused replied in a voice which was low and failing at the end: “I can only say that I am innocent of this. I cannot believe yet that the child found was M’Leod’s.”

The Court c-rier, having command ed silence, the Judge addressed the prisoner and said: “Prisoner at the bar, it is unnecessary that I should say more than a few words. Your crime in the eyes of the public speaks for itself. Unfortunately I have bad to pass sentence of death on several occasions, but I have never known suck a cruel and heartless murder as this.” Assuming the black cap, the Judge then said: “The -entence of the Court is that you will be taken hence to the place of execution and there hanged by the neck till you arc dead.” The condemned man bowed his head, apparently dazed, and was hurriedly taken away to the cells. The Judge thanked the jury for the careful attention given to the painful ease and said he would make an order that they he discharged from jury service for five years. His Honour also complimented the police on the fairness of the manner in which they had conducted the case. On Air Treadwell’s application, the Judge agreed to hear an application in Chambers for leave to appeal on the question of the admissibility of certain evidence. The Crown Prosecutor gave notice of the intention to enter a nolie prosequi in the other two charges against Mrs Cooper, which will be dealt with oh Monday next, to which date the criminal session has been adjourned. Large crowds of morbidly curious spectators collected outside the Court in the vicinity of the exit from the ceils to see the condemned man removed. The police, however, kept a space clear for the van and very few hud a view of the prisoner as he entered and was driven away There was no demonstration and in a few minutes the crowd dispersed.