MUNN PETITIONS FOR NEW TRIAL OR REPRIEVE

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1015, 4 July 1930, Page 1

MUNN PETITIONS FOR NEW TRIAL OR REPRIEVE

CLAIMS JURY WAS BIASED

NEWSPAPER REPORTS MENTIONED JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CONSIDERS PLEA A PETITION for the mercy of the Crown has been forwarded to the Governor-General by Arthur Thomas Munn. The petition, which was forwarded on Wednesday through an Auckland firm of solicitors, is accompanied by a number of reports in support by Mr. P. J. Brown, private inquiry ag’ent, of Auckland. Permission to release the text of the petition has just been received from the Justice Department, Wellington. The petition, which is addressed to the GovernorGeneral, reads:—

Tile liumble petition of Arthur Thomas Munn, of Northcote, wickerworker, showeth as follows: 1. That on May 27, 1930. your petitioner was convicted, in the Supreme Court, of the murder of his wile. Lillie May Munn, and sentenced to death. NEWSPAPER REPORTS >. That by reason of the publication prior to such trial in newspapers circulating in Auckland of matters relating to the case, it was impossible for the jury at such trial to approach the case without preconception as to the case against your petitioner and as to the guilt of your petitioner, or for them to give an impartial and unprejudiced hearing to the evidence then adduced on behalf of your petitioner. In particular your petitioner refers to the following matters of publication:— (a) The publication after the arrest of your petitioner on March S, 1930, of statements or rumours collected by newspaper reporters. (b) The publication of accounts of the evidence given on behalf of the Crown at the inquest on the body of the said Lillie May Munn and the preliminary inquiry into the charge against your petitioner which were held contemporaneously in the Magistrate's Court at Auckland on March 31 and April 1 and 2, 1930. JURY'S ATTITUDE Tour petit! f.ier admits that the members of the jury were duly cautioned at such trial to put out of their minds all matters heard or read by them prior thereto and to take into account against your petitioner only the evidence adduced at such trial, but. says that it was impossible for the jury so to do, and that the jury did not in fact do so, as i 3 indicated by the following: That at the trial a juryman was in possession of a newspaper which your petitioner believes to have been a copy of "New Zealand Truth,” containing an account of such inquest and enquiry. That the publications above referred to were made before any publication of anything relating to your petitioner s defence to the charge and were publications of ex parte statements which had not been subjected to cross-examination and which in the case of those referred to in the first Part of paragraph 2 hereof could not be subject to cross-examination or scru 'my of any kind. The matters published werg of a sensation nature and mflamed public feeling against your Petitioner, and gave rise to false ru-p-Sainst your petitioner, such as hat he had narrowly escaped being

charged with murder and other offences previously and that he had previously committed murders of children. That public feeling was inflamed against him was manifested by the members of the public present in court at the trial. j That the foreman of the jury at the | trial shortly before the close of the j case for the Crown in reference to a i question asked by him, stated that one of the jury remembered that a witness had said that Mrs. Munn had complained of your petitioner having given her the "nastiest, bitterest dose of salts she had ever tasted,” this being a matter as to which evidence was given at the said inquest and preliminary inquiry, but such evidence was excluded as inadmissible at such trial by the decision of Mr. Justice Herdmaa on May 12, 1930. WITNESSES VARY 5. That your petitioner says that ha met Mrs. Mary Jane Brown, a witness for the Crown at such trial, at the Northcote Ferry Wharf, at Auckland, about 12.30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 4, 1930 (on which date ha handed in a telegram at the Auckland Post Office at 12.22 p.m.), and not, as deposed to by her on Wednesday, February 5, 1930, on which date he obtained a telegram in the morning from the Takapuna Post Office and dispatched one from the Auckland Post Office at 3.57 p.m.); also that her visits to the late Mrs. Munn were made on the 4th, sth and 6th days of 1 February and not on the sth and 7th February as deposed to her, and therefore her evidence as to the condition of Mrs. Munn on her last visit to her relates to Thursday, February C, on which afternoon Mrs. Munn was also seen by Dr. Dudding, witness for the Crown, whose evidence as to the condition of Mrs. Munn on that date is therefore at variance with that of the said Mary Jane Brown. 7. Your petitioner submits that the evidence given at the said trial does not exclude the possibility of the death of the said deceased being due to strychnine poison self-administered by deceased either for the purpose of suicide or for the purpose of correcting delayed menstruation. 8. Your petitioner says that he did not at any time administer any poison to the said deceased and is innocent of the crime of which he has been convicted. Your petitioner therefore prays that your Excellency will be pleased to direct a new' trial at such time and before such Court at such place, other than Auckland, as to your Excellency shall seem proper, or if shall not please your Excellency so to do, that your Excellency w'ill extend the mercy of the Crown to your petitioner and remit or commute the sentence.