MOUAT’S TRIAL.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCVIII, 13 May 1925, Page 10

MOUAT’S TRIAL.

Supreme Court Proceedings

QUESTION OF NEWSPAPER ACTIVITY.

By Telegraph—Press Association.

CHRISTCHURCH. May 1 Frederick Peter Mouat, in tho Supreme Court, this morning, was charged with having murdered his wife, Ellen Louise Mouat, at St. Martins on or about February 20 last. ... _ . Long before the doors of the Court opened, a crowd of men and women gathered outside In the rain. No sooner were the doors thrown open by the police, than most of those waiting swarmed in, occupying the gallery. „ Mr A. S. Donnelly, Crown Prosecutor conducted the case for the Crown, and Mr C. S. Thomas (with him Mr Simi appeared for Mouat. Mr Justice .Adams said the case for the Crown was that Mrs Mouat never left the house at any time after her return from Mrs Trosser’s at un o'clock oil February 19, but that she was killed by accused and that her body was destroyed by fire. Part of the evidence for tho Crown was scientific. It was said by the Crown that the whole of Mrs Mouat’s wardrobe had been found in the house, including the costume and other articles which accused described as being worn by her on the morning of Friday, February 20; also that her handbag, corsets, shoes and artificial teeth was found in tue house. Then the conduct of Mouat was relied on in a great many particulars. Attention would be directed to various facts such as that at four o’clock on the same day, seven hours after she went away to meet Mrs Hardle, and after she had told accused that if she did not come hack he was to take her bag to the station, he sold part of her jewellery to a pawnbroker In Christchurch, and that he did not return home to sleep that nis-ht. He slept at the Rotherfield Hotel, and he also slept there on three succeeding nights, being about the house in Bedford Street part of the day time. By far the most important part of the case which the Crown alleged, was evidence to show that accused had fires burning on his section after the disappearance of his wife; that fires were burning on the section outside, also under the copper, and in the fireplace of the dining room; and that on the site of these fires had been found a number e£ hones and pieces of bone, some of which had been identified as human bones. His Honour said there w re other circumstances in relation to this which he would not enter into, such as the use of Jeyes’ fluid round the dining-room fire. The conduct of Mouat was also put forward as indicating guilt. From the whole of the evidence his Honour concluded that the jury would have no doubt that the case ought to be sent on to a common jury.

The Grand Jury returned a true bill.

Twenty jurymen were challenged by the Crown and six by,tho defence. Mr A. T. Donnelly, Crown Prosecutor, in opening the case for the Crown, said Mouat must be tried on the evidence in Court, and not on any other evidence. If the jury had any reasonable doubt as to his guilt they should acquit him. It was necessary to ask them to dismiss from their minds any prejuilh cs. impressions, or opinions formed from t-os-sip, rumour, or what appeared in newspapers. The facts had been discussed in newspapers, reinforced by the camera, and the newspapers nad been very active in respect to the case. Counsel was not suggesting the Christchurch newspapers had been guilty of any impropriety in what they had published, but the jury must be very careful that in no particular 3houid they bo swayed or influenced by anything of that nature! It was vital that Mouat should have the same fair trial as would be given to any person charged with a minor offence. The possibility of injury to the fairness of a trial in cases ol that nature had bi.’jim- so marked that Parliament might, have to consider whether or not it the irterests of fair trials Parliament should dr vise some standard of reporting which wpuld define what was fair and proper with greater clearness than could be applied in the stress of competition hetween the newspapers. A large quantity of evidence would be given, including three statements by Mouat. The whole of the evidence was addressed to prove two simple facts on which the Crown based the charge:—(l) That Mrs Mouat was dead; (2) that Mouat killed her. Counsel might say at once that there was no direct evidence by eye-witnesses as to either fact. Nobody saw Mouat kill Mrs Mouat; nobody knew how she was killed. Nobody saw her body after she was killed, but the Crown would prove her death at Mouat’s hands by what was called circumstantial evidence; by facts that pointed all one way. Before coming to details, counsel said he could place the case for the Crown before the jury by a statement which would show how strong the case was. It would show that the case was proved by substantial evidence of methodical certainty, just as in a sum of simple arithmetic.

Mr Donnelly then in a lengthy address went fully into the details of the case on the lines of the evidence given in the Magistrate’s Court about three weeks ago. Mr Donnelly, in concluding his address, said, the case was one of the most extraordinary in kind and character, and it was difficult to find in the records in any country of any time a case with facts similar to this. The charge was grave and tne jury’s responsibility heavy. J. B. Merritt (Mrs Mount's brother), gave evidence similar to that given by him in the lower court.

Evidence was also given on the lines of the Magistrate’s Court evidence, of fires being seen on Mount's section and on the premises after Mrs Mouat’s disappearance; of Mouat having pawned trinkets; of bones being found where rubbish

fires had been, and of a nag containing women’s apparel being lound at the house of Mr 3 Mount, senior, at Purakanui, near Dunedin. The case, which is likely to last all the week, was then adjourned till 10 a.m. to-morrow.