CHRISTCHURCH CHILD MURDER.

Taranaki Daily News, 20 February 1918, Page 5

CHRISTCHURCH CHILD MURDER.

THE MOTHER ACQUITTED. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Ohristeluirch, Feb. 19Martha Kelliugworth gave evidence that accused hired a room on December 7, but did not occupy it that night. Isabella Patrick, employed at the parcels olliee in Cathedral Square, said the accused loft an umbrella and suit case on December 7. returning the following day for the luggage. Thomas I'layl'ord, cabman, who drove children to Hums' house from the receiving home, detailed a conversation with a woman who was anxious to know where lie took the children. He could not swear that accused was tho woman.: Detective-Sergeant Gibson said that when he arrested accused she denied knowing where the child was and declined to iay where she had spent the previous nightThis closed the evidence for the Crown. The court adjourned to enable the jury to visit the scene- of the murder, also the scene of the abandonment' of the deceased when an infant. Christchurch, Last Night. Mr. Raymond, Crown prosecutor, addressing the jury, said it was clear that an inoffensive baby had been killed, and one had to consider who were the persons likely to be included in the category of those who might, have committed the could be eliminated. The accused had crime. AH those who resided at Burns' never shown any affection for the child, and he described as significant her action in trying to locate its whereabouts, and the fact that she had been in the locality in which the Burns family lived on the night of the day on which the tragedy was committed. It was also significant that after her arrest her stockings showed that she had been walking about in her stocking feet. Then accused had given a false account of her movements to different people, and it was clear she was out all night on the night of the murder. The one statement that would clear accused she refused to say one word about, and that was as to where she was (luring the night of the murder. In these circumstances the jury could not have difficulty in fixing the responsibility for the crime. Mr. Alpers, for accused, said accused had had an unfortunate career. It was a common occurrence for mothers of illegitimate children to abandon their offspring, not in the literal sense, but by, adoption and by other Wans. Slmmo was the chief motive, but that, did not apply in the present ease. The child was three years of age, and all the early distresses had passed away. There was no similarity in the motive that would have prompted the abandonment of the infant and the brutal murder three years later by the same person. The circumstances of the crime of December 8 were entirely circumstantial in regard to accused. He contended the Crown's evidence was not cogent enough to justify them in finding accused guilty, and said her failure to explain where she had spent the previous night was due to the fact that she had had experiem of gaol and police methods, which made her cautious. In conclusion, he emphasised the point that it was the Crown's duty, not to show that the accused was the probable murderer, but was in faet the murderer. Judge Chapman, in a lengthy summing up, mainly on the question of motive, said the present was a case of circumstantial evidence, the Crown suggesting that, accused was the one person in the world who had a motive for the crime. If they found a flaw in that reasoning, accused must be given the benefit of the doubt. The jury retired at 5.12 p.m., and returned at 8 p.m. with a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged.