JURY DISAGREE.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCVIII, 16 May 1925, Page 9

JURY DISAGREE.

Mouat Murder Case.

NEW TRIAL IN AUGUST. By Telegraph—Teresa Association. CHRISTCHURCH, May 15. The Mouat murder trial was resumed this morning. Detective Thompson, re-called, 9 part of the section had been dug said that since the arrest on March over by someone. The heap where the magnum bone was found hau been disturbed, and a large animal bone was now lying there. The defence called no evidence. Opening bis address for the Crown Mr A. T. Donnelly said It was a right of the accused to say that the Crown case had failed in the burden of establishing guilt. It was upon this privilege that the accused rested his defence. The evidence for the Crown, stood alone, uncontradicted and unchallenged, except to the extent that it would be criticised, commented upon and explained "in the address of counsel for the defence. The jury must remember that direct evidence in cases of that .nature was not requisite. Facts did not lie, and could not he mistaken, and circumstantial evidence had been relied upon from the earliest times. All the facts pointed to Mr 3 Mouat’s death at Mouat’s hands. There were a few simple facts, the inference from which was beyond dispute. The first was that Mrs Mouat was left alone with Mouat in. the house. The second was that she had not been seen again. The third was that he should know what became of her, because he was the last person with her before h.er disappearance, and was her husband. The fourth was that he persistently made false statements to the police. She had not been seen since she went into the house with him on the evening of February 19. A hundred and one points of the evidence showed that she was alive in the house that night. A woman could not be snatched or plucked out of the world; she must lmvp been alive in the house, and her body must have been destroyed, dismembered, or altered. Thirtyone bones found in the garden had been shown to be the hones of a small Avoman. They must belong to her. Regarding the * bones, there Avas no successful way of challenging the evidence of Professor Gowland and Dr. Cairney that the bones Avere human. Neither Professor GoAvland nor Dr. Cairney had been cross-examined on this aspect of the case and the doctors’ evidence should be accepted. The defence must propound some theory for the extraordinary discovery of human bones in the garden of a bungaloAv. They belonged to the same person. Mouat Avas hanging stained sheets and blankets on the line. He must have washed them. His . object was to get rid of the stains that experts said Avere blood stains. Dr. Milligan had been attacked by counsel for tae defence, but he was the on? man in . Ncav Zealand qualified to srivo an opinion on the stains. Professor Biekerion, the finalyst, also had been attacked with the . same lack of" success. The action of Mouat in disappearing after he had been asked by the chief detective to return to the office Avas commented on by Mr Donnelly. Was it consistent with the story told by accused, or Avith the theory of the CroAvn? They had to hear In mind the belated suggestion of suicide which accused had made on the day of his arrest. Why had he told that last lie? The Crown established that a Avoman’s body was destroyed, and that the hones must be hers. Although the CroAvn could not say precisely liow the crime Avas committed, the theory Avas that the bodv must have been destroyed, and the parts left had be.en through fire. The case was an extraordinary one, anJ was of considerable difficulty. The CroAvn’s case Avas that Mouat committed the crime callously, but Avas tripped up in his efforts to destroy evidence. Mr C. S. Thomas then addressed th,e jury. At the outset ho said he Avished to thank the CroAtn Prosecutor for his utmost fairness. Mr Thomas Avent on to say that the Crown had no direct evidence in the present case There was no evidence that Mrs Mouat Avas dead, and no direct evidence that she Avas murdered. A chain of circumstantial evidence had been forged around Mouat. The bones obviously were human bones, but they took the case not one inch further. It '-ould net be said that because they Avere found on the section there had been murder. The place - where they Avere found Avas a rubbish dump. The age of tho bones could not be stated by the experts further than that they were not fossil Maori bones. Ripaki Avas close to the scene. At Kaiapoi there had been another "large Maori Pa. The bones might have been left by Maoris who in the late ’sixties or 'seventies trekked between the two Pas and fished for eels in the Heathcote River, AAhich ran near Mouat’s section. One witness had said the section Avas full of bones. The onus was on the CroAvn to prove that the bones in court Avere Mrs Mouat’s, and it had not done so. Mr Thomas continued that the CroAvn Prosecutor had suggested that if Mrs Mouat was alive she Avoulcl have come back to protect Mouat in his terrible position, but if she had gone away AVith another man every statement made by Mouat tallied. If she Avent off in that Avay she probably Avas not in this country, and was not in touch with Avhat Avas happening here. Mrs Prosser had said that Mrs Mouat had suffered from a recurrence of a fever in South Africa, and was depressed and melancholy. How could it be said that she did not commit suicide? As to the blood-stains, the whole of the evidence Avas consistent Avith a cut or bleeding nose, but was absolutely inconsistent Avith the cutting up of a body. The blood that would explain a murder such as was alleged Avas absent. One of the strongest pieces of evidence of Mount's innocence Avas that Mrs Mouat had a second set of false teeth Avhich could not be found. It Avas not lilccdy that a guilty man Avould go to a paAvnbroker with his dead Avife’s trinkets and say “My name is Mouat.” Could they believe that a small smouldering rubbish fire could destroy a body in a few hours? The body coukl not ha\'e been burnt either outside or inside. When the jury considered Mouat’s movements after Mrs Mouat’s disappearance, continued Mr Thomas, they should remember that she had left him on a previous occasion. He gaA'e his explanation to the police, and for five or six hours he Avas kept at the police station and Avas examined. He probably Avas told that his story was not believed. His Honour said there ayms nothing in evidence in support of that statement. Mr Thomas said that on that night Mouat must have realised that a net Avas being Avoven around him. He would realise then that he Avas suspected of murder. He did what any innocent man Avould do in a panic—he rushed off. He did not leave the country, but went near his home and actually slept on the verandah of his house. His action was the action

of a man. In a panic, not the action of a man fleeing from justice. Mouat had been superlatively good to Mrs Mouat. The CroAvn had failed to proA'e any motive Avhatever. How could Mouat turn suddenly from a decent citizen into a callous criminal? There Avas no blood on any of the tools found on the premises. All his implements Avere clean, bright, and unstained. More important still, where was Mrs Mouat cut up? A chopper or a saAV must have gone through bone and flesh. into some other substance. Even if it was done in the bath there would be scratches. Professor Bickerton said there was not sufficient blood to show that any person was murdered in bed, yet the whole house had been 1 examined by the police microscopically, Mouat was accused of committing a foul murder. If the Crownis case was true, Mouat after the deM sang and laughed and chatted with neighbours. On the Crown’s theory he was a fiend incarnate, yet all the evidence showed his disposition Avas quite the . reverse. Mr Thomas claimed that he had explained aAvay every point the Crown had raised. Circumstantial evidence that seemed conclusive sometimes was absolutely unreliable. It must not he forgotten that the Crown had found it impossible to reconstruct the crime. Hoav then could Mouat be found guilty of it? “If this man is hanged,” Mr Thomas concluded, “and six months later Mrs Mouat returns from South Africa, Avhat will your feelings be? Remember that if you find Mouat guilty you find that he is a fiend incarnate; that he committed a shocking brutal murder. I put it to you that his guilt is impossible.” Mr Thomas’s address to the jury occupied three hours. After reviewing the evidence, Mr Justice Adams said the first question to be decided Avas: Was Mrs Mouat dead? The second one was: Had she met her death at the hands of her husband? A good deal had been heard during the hearing of the case on the question of circumstantial evidence, and in this connection His Honour read the opinion of an eminent English jurist showing that such evidence had an important bearing. AVhen direct evidence Avas hot forthcoming. The Crown Prosecutor had admitted that it Avas impossible to reconstruct the case, and Mr Thomas had said this was the big Avealcness in the case for tho CroAvn. But a little consideration would shOAV that such was not the case. The CroAvn Prosecutor put it that the crime had been committed at a time Avhen Mouat and his wife had been alone in the house in such circumstances that only circumstantial evidence could be offered. The making of deductions from the evidence given Avas a matter for the jury. It Avas a rule that a man Avas innocent until proved guilty, and the jury had to be satisfied that such Avas the case before they found accused guilty. A statement had been made by Mouat that his Avife had on one occasion left him for another man, but it Avas the duty of His Honour to point out that there Avas no evidence that such Avas the case. It had been suggested that Mrs Mouat had suffered from low spirits, and had threatened to commit suicide, but it had to be remembered that the evening before, she Avas, according to witresses, in her usual spirits. She Avas also, according to Mouat himself, able to rise as usual in the morning and leave the house Avith a VieAV to mee'ing her friend. It Avas for the jury to determine the suicide theory. Respecting the discovery of bones, His Honour said the CroAvn claimed that the discovery of bones In the icrcumstances in Avhich they Avere found, and in the places in Avhich they had been found, amounted to a demonstration of conclusive guilt. The question of the disposal of the body Avas not solved, nor Avas that of Avhether or not a lethal weapon Avas used. The C-roAvn did not claim that the AvhoJe of the body had been destro3 r ed by fire, but that a portion of it had been burnt.

The jury retired at 6.20 p.m. but had tea before entering upon consideration of their verdict at 8 p.m. Just before midnight the jury returned and announced that they were unable to agree. A neAV trial was fixed for the August sessions.