ACQUITTAL OF PRIESTLY AND MRS HAMILTON.

Patea Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 989, 26 January 1883, Page 3

ACQUITTAL OF PRIESTLY AND MRS HAMILTON.

[ . / ” —.Q- - /; /,j V } ; (per press "'association.) ; _ AUCKLAND, Jan. 25. The evidence in Prieslty’s defence closed! this morning. - Anna ’Neilson was* called, i but ' was trio ill to appear;- Mr Cooper,'in addressing the jury on behalf of Mrs- Hamilton, said "the prriSecutiofr failed to prove that Hamilton did notmeet his; death 'by • pure ' accident. 1 He characterised the questioning of prisoner by the dete.ctives prior to, arrest as unEnglish, and complained of (he adverse attitude the Crown had taken, up in respect of prisoners: from thb ; first. They were arrested on the 15th December, and had been confined in gaol ever .since, so; (hat; Hey had been entirely,, dependent upon .friends to get up necessary .evidence tp establish their innocence. It was the 'duty of the Crown to bring’forward every bit.qf evidence bearing on (his case, irrespective p.f pghqtlifir or not: it \vas-:adverso to the prisoners ; but, instead of doing this, 1 they had only adduced evidence that was! favourable to their case. He then proceededto show that the entire fabric of flic case for the prosecution rested upon the belief of four meili.caljpmp that.Hamilton,cou ; ld; not have sustained death* In' a fall against the bedstead ; and this opinion is open to question, inasmuch as Dr Philson had ad-mitted-tile' pi-bhabi 1 ity ! of the wound being’ received from onfall aggiiist a bedstead. Ho also contended fhat" the uninjured state of the dura . mater ; \vaa opposed to the theory of the wound having been caused by a blow, which would necessarily have had to bo one of excessive violence ; ami he held that it was quite consistent with the theory of the fall ; as were also alleged statements that the wounded man, subsequently rising, was staggering about and talking incoherent!}'. Later. The. Hamilton alleged murder case hr concluded. Judge Gillies summed up .strongly for prisoners, and said there was a missing link in the evidence and the chain of evidence therefore was no stronger than its weakest link. 'The jury* after half an hour’s deliberation, returned a verdict of not guilty.