MUNN’S APPEAL

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1012, 1 July 1930, Page 12

MUNN’S APPEAL

(Continued from Page 1.) It was further proved that as a j Tesult of this advertisement prisoner I became involved in an intrigue with I a woman named Stuck, and that one j of his excuses for his conduct was i that his wife had lost interest in him. I “FEELINGS OF ENMITY” “In these circumstances it j aeems to me, applying tin? j language o £ Mr. Justice Kennedy, in Rex v. Bonrl (cited above) that the) previous relations of prisoner and his ■wife could reasonably be treated us j explanatory of the conduct of accused ; as charged in the indictment and were J properly admitted to proof as integral j parts of the history of the alleged | crime lor which prisoner was on his trial and, to apply the language of Lord Atkinson, the evidence sought to J bo given was evidence of the previous j acts of prisoner to show he entertained | feelings of enmity toward deceased and J was evidence, not merely of the malici-! ous mind with which he killed de-1 ceased, but of the fact that he killed her. “If a prisoner is charged with the murder of his wife, whether the means i alleged to have been adopted are pois- j oning or an act of violence, the mere | fact that on a previous isolated oc- ! rasion he had shown violence toward her in a fit of anger might not he admissible, but a pt\~sistent course of unkindness, cruelty and ill-will is quite another different thing. TIME OF CONDUCT Mr. Northcroft, in answer to ques- j lions from the Bench, admitted, very i properly, I think, that if the conduct I given in evidence by the daughters : and son had continued up to the date : of the death of deceased or up to a date shortly before her death, the evi- ! dence would have been admissible. If | that is so, then it goes a long way to j dispose of the suggestion that there is no logical connection between the j prior conduct sought to be proved and ihe crime (or type of crime) charged, but Mr. Isortherot't contends that inasmuch as the evidence refers to a j period as far back as, in the case of ihe daughters, three years before the death and. in the case of the son, one year, the conduct sought to be given in evidence is, as it were, too stale, and has therefore no logical connection with the alleged method of commission of the crime, that is, by poisoning. In my opinion this contention is not well founded. ! cannot see that the method of the alleged crime in a case of this kind is material. If the fact is that the person charged with the crime of murdering his wife had become tired of her such a fact is relevant, at least as showing the motive, quite irrespective of the means or method alleged to have been used in the commission of the crime. Indeed, it may he thought that it would be much more likely for a man who had become tired of his wife to endeavour to get rid of her by some more subtle means lhau an act of violence. “From the time when the son left prisoner's house the only persons living in the house with prisoner and his wife were the two quite young children of the second marriage. If, as is admitted, the evidence challenged would have been relevant had the course of conduct extended to a date shortly before the death of deceased I can see ns> reason why the evidence should not be admissible because the persons giving evidence are unable, in the nature of the circumstances, to speak ol more recent conduct. If the acts sought to be given in evidence were isolated acts there w'ould be a great deal of force in Mr. Northcroft’s contention (see Rex. v. Mobbs, 6 Cox C C 223, which was discussed and explained in Rex v. Chomatau Yabu, 5 W.A.L.R. 35, and “Russell on Crimes,” eighth edition, 1916), but it is different, I think, where the evidence tendered is evidence of a persistent course of conduct over a period of several years. Moreover the publication of the advertisement already referred to and prisoner’s subsequent conduct with Mrs. Stuck, help bridge the hiatus between the time when the son left the house and the date of the death of deceased and, I think, to make relevant the previous relations between prisoner and his wife. "It may be observed that in Rex v. Ball (cited above) the evidence under consideration which was held to he admissible was evidence of acts done by accused two years before the date of the offence charged against them in the indictment (see also Rex v. Carrick (1918) G.L.R. 132). “I think, also, that in all the circumstances of this case the evidence was admissible for the purpose of rebutting a possible (and I understand, suggested) defence by the prisoner that his wife had taken poison herself, either suicidally or accidentally. For these reasons the evidence, in my opinion, was relevant and was properly admitted. The question of its weight or value was a matter for the jury and on this question the jury seems to have been carefully and properly directed by the learned trial judge. “The case stated also raised the question as to whether certain other evidence which the Crown tendered, but which the learned judge rejected, was properly excluded. If this court had come to the conclusion that the evidence of the son and daughters was not admissible and consequently that a new trial should be ordered, it would have been necessary to determine the second question for the purposes of the further trial, but as the members of this court were unanimous in their view that the evidence of the son and daughters was properly admitted, the second question was not argued.”