POLICE UNDER FIRE

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 981, 26 May 1930, Page 1

POLICE UNDER FIRE

“Suspicious and Sinister” MR. NORTHCROFT’S ADDRESS Dr. Dadding Attacked CONTENDING that the Crown had given a suspicious and sinister import to the innocent actions of Arthur Thomas Munn, on trial on a charge of wife-murder, Mr, E. H. Northcroft, in his address for the defence in the Supreme Court this morning, attacked what he described as the “mental attitude of police officials,”

THr. Justice Herdmau was on the Bench, the Crown Prosecutor, Mr. V. R. Meredith and Mr. McCarthy conducted the Crown case, and Mr. E. IT. N'orthcroft and Mr. Munro represented the accused. Opening his address to the jury. Mr. Northcroft said a stage had now been reached when it was necessary to take the jury’s minds back over certain portions of the evidence, to enable rhein to reach a definite conclusion. There had been a great deal oif detail g be considered. It was impossible ror him to anticipate what the jury’s difficulties were on points advanced for the defence, therefore it was necessary to traverse all points -that counsel for the defence deemed essential. JURY’S TASK The task of deciding what the proper conclusion was, was the jury’s, not counsel’s or the judge's, he said, and appealed to the jury to bear with him if he was ’’labouring the obvious” or any point on which the jury was in agreement. In exercising that patience, which he was confident they would extend to him, recalling their extraordinary care and alertness in listening to the evidence, he asked them to bear in mind that in the mass of detail there might. be matters which he might unwillingly overlook. “I ask you to acquit my friend and myself of any deliberate attempt not to discuss any point. I ask you to appreciate that, at no time, have we been anxious to avoid fighting out the issue to a definite conclusion We have deliberately chosen to meet the Crown on its own ground, and in the language of the duellist, ‘to fight them toot tn foot with every parry and thrust. ” He would endeavour to show conclusively the Crown was wrong, he added. Mr. Northcroft said that Munn had been shown to be an entirely worthy, decent, respectable citizen. He had struggled to his feet from birth, fought domestic and commercial difficulties. and served his fellow citizens. A certain roughness of manner and uncouthness of speech had been properly ascribed to Munn. Mrs. Brown’s statement that Munn had said he did not want any damned women about the place was quite correct, counsel said. Whatever else might have been said concerning the roughness, impulsiveness and hot-headedness of Munn, there was nothing to suggest that he could coldly, callously plan a dreadful murder, -with all its horrors. If Munn was so coldly calculating and so thoughless of the sufferings of others, it would have been easier to remove the whole family—poison could have been found on the breakfast table; it could have been mixed in food by Mrs. Munn, and Munn could easily have had some himself. This course would have been so much easier and less dangerous, counsel said.

“SINISTER INFLUENCE” Another fact was the undoubted influence that Munn’s first wife had on bis earlier years and on the children. The sinister influence of Munn’s first wife was not only in her divorcing of the children's affections from him, but also in their appearance in the box against him. The second marriage was not hasty and impulsive and the statement showed that Munn was not a man to rush into a sentimental association. If Munn was a man who murdered in a fit of passion to pursue an illicit association, he would not be likely to have married so soon, counsel said. The purchase of the Northcote home was effected by Munn, who put in some of his own money besides that of his wife. When he had arrived here from Wairarapa he was in a good financial position. although later, through the reversion of the land, he

had to go bankrupt. The putting of the property into his wife’s name was a perfectly proper and decent action, said counsel. Counsel reminded the jury that he had implored them to keep an open mind, but he said he realised there must have been difficulty in doing so. This was indicated by one incident during the trial where a question was asked concerning certain evidence believed to have been given in this Court, whereas no such testimony had been given. He referred to this point because of the way the Crown case had been presented, and he acquitted the Crown Prosecutor of doing anything unfair. In the heat of forensic ardour many things might have been done which would not be done in calmer moments. He appealed to them to confine themselves to the decision on the testimony given in this court. “Munn stood before you claiming he was an innocent man, wrongly accused and was determined to go into the box and give his explanation.” said Mr. Northcroft. “When he came here to stand his trial, Munn was suffering from a weak, gastric stomach. He required careful diet and w T as used to living a free life, j He was violently taken from his home j and thrown into prison,” said counsel | He went into the witness-box under a ' terrific handicap.” Counsel did not complain of the | machinery which ensured an accused j person being brought to trial. The j consequences on the mind of a man so i incarcerated must have been terrible. ! especially on a man not highly-trained j and intellectual. MUNN’S CROSS-EXAMINATION Munn went into the box to stand j cross-examination, which was an ex j ceetiingly important part of Court pro- 1

eedure. The. cross-examination of accused w as under three heads, firstly his association -with Mrs. Stuck, secondly his absences from home during his wife’s illness, and thirdly as to all the circumstances of his wife’s illness, and the purchase of the poison. “I venture to say that rarely has so little of a damaging or inequivocal nature been obtained by cross-examina-tion as was received from Munn,” said counsel. “Munn stood virtually unassailable, although assailed with all the vigour and skill of the Crown Prosecutor. “I don’t pretend that he came through as did Mrs. Stuck. The crossexamination of Munn on his association with Mrs. Stuck was indefensible. How- many are there, who have no secret indiscretion, uni how many are there who could stand up and not give stupid answ-ers?” he asked. “Munn was acting wrongly and knew it and made no pretence to defend his actions,” said counsel. “The purpose of the cross-examina-tion was to inflame your minds to show that Munn was so blackguardly that he ought to be convicted.” Mr. Northcroft said. “The easiest and most blackguardly thing for Munn to have done would have been to have said that Mrs. Stuck was his mistress. But if Munn had stated that, he would not only have been a blackguard, but a liar. Munn weut w-ith Mrs. Stuck to her people and the affair was carried on under the eyes of her relations. The police, too, had the house under close surveillance to obtain evidence that Mrs. Stuck was his mistress,” said counsel. “Whatever might be the jury’s view on the association, he suggested that accused 'could have escaped many hours of gruelling crossexamination. “But what motive is there in it?” he asked. VISITS TO TOWN Dealing with the suggestion that Munn callously left his wife during her illness so that he could pursue his affair with Mrs. Stuck. Mr. Northcroft said that there were business reasons for accused’s visits to town. His affair, too, with Mrs. Stuck, though not immoral, was sufficiently intimate that he should wish to communicate with her. Throughout the crossexamination Munn had stood his ground to show there was no warrant for believing that Mrs. Munn could not be left alone. “Why is Munn to be hejd up to contempt and pilloried for leaving his wife?” asked Mr. Northcroft. "For the most part the children were home about 3.30 p.m., and Mrs. Munn could not be left alone. To suggest that Munn had behaved in an extraordinarily indecent way w-as wrong. There was substantial confirmation of Munn’s attitude to his wife, continued counsel, in Mrs. Munn’s correspondence to her mother. She had written: “Arthur is just goodness, itself . . .” Was that the type ot let-

ter, argued counsel, that Mrs. Munn would have written had Munn been neglecting her to the degree suggested. Counsel suggesteu that the cross-examination had been directed “to inflame the minds of the jury against Munn.” There had not been utter neglect. “My learned friend has been able to suggest that the statements gained by the police were not properly consistent with the evidence,” proceeded Mr. Northcroft. “The police, apparently having secured all the necessary information from Munn on the first occasion had no occasion to go back. In all essentials, the statements made to the police can be verified. If. gentlemen of the jury, you find minor differences in Munn’s statement to the police and Munn’s evidence in the box, you must remember that the statements are not in Munn’s own words.

“LANGUAGE OF THE POLICE” “Munn was put thi-ougb a long cross-examination by the police. His answers, taken over a long period, were -written in the language of the police.” Counsel submitted that Munn had kept to the important points of the statements. The only subject on which, as far as counsel could see, Mr. Meredith had made any headway was in the suggestion concerning the delay in a certain condition of Mrs. Munn. Munn had made a definite answer. Mr. Mackenzie had committed himself to the statement that strychnine could not readily be administered in salts, but counsel said he had scrutinised expert authority coming from Dr. Gilmour’s department at the Auckland Hospital—a book published in America. This book, in dealing with cases with the medium of taking strychnine referred to by Mr. Meredith —namely, coffee at night—gave facts that this medium actually caused partial poisoning only. The inference to be drawn fi-om this statement of fact was that strychnine in unsuitable mediums caused only partial poisoning. Mr. Northcroft | quoted a number of causes showing i coffee to be an unsuitable medium, i and said he had found only one case of the nature where the medium had succeeded. Counsel went on to deal I with wine, whisky, liquor, sugar j beer, bread and butter, flour and I cake as mediums. “I freely acquit Mr. Meredith of an ! attempt to force the embarrassed Mr. j Mackenzie to mislead you in any way,” 1 said Mr. Northcroft, “but there has been an attempt to put this book in : as an authority that coffee is a suitable medium.”

(Continue* on Fka« '*.)