THE TE AROHA MURDER CASE.

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3837, 16 April 1881, Page 2

THE TE AROHA MURDER CASE.

THE JUDGE'S SUMMING UP.

His Honor Judge Richmond, in summoning up, reminded the Jury that the duty entrusted to them was a momentous one, and one, therefore, demanding from them the utmost fidelity and the gravest consideration. The difficulty of a case like that before the Court consisted in this, that the Crown relied for proof of guilt of t-b.3 prisoner upon a number of minute facts and circumstances, and that these facts'and circumstancea are separate from and .independent of each other, so that if they were taken alone they will be of absolutely little worth at all. In some criminal cases proof might be likened to a chain the strength of which depends upon each of its links, for it was a wellknowa law of practical mechanics lhatthe strength of a chain wes just the strength of the weakest Jink in it. Such, however, was not the character of this case, for to take a more homely illustration it might be said to be much more like a faggot, each stick of which, when taken apart, may be broken with a little effort, but which, when tried together, will resist a very great strain. It was essentially necessary that an effort should be made to take the cace as a whole at once, in order to see what it was worth, though of course it was quite right to disrespect what was shown to be worthless. Everything that appeared to have eny validity, however, must be considered not alone but in con« nection with the rest of the case. The operation called for a freely strong mental effort, fie did not intend to weary the jury with a very lengthy recapitulation of the case, but he would give to them what appeared to him to be the view of it in which the facts were supposed to point lo one result. The proof might be a long one, but that did not prevent-a -clear result from being brought out. The best way of putting it would be to examine the parts upon which the Crown relied, and then to consider thorn altogether. If, in their consciences, they entertained a doubt upon the case as a whole, then it was hardly for him to tell them that it was their duty to give the prisoner She benefit of that doubt. It was quite certain that a murder had been committed by someone. Something had been said by both learned counsel with regard to malice prepense, but it was not of great importance. The state in which the body ;was found showed that the murder had been committed. Tho injuries inflicted upon it were murderous injuries, and whoever committed them was prima facie the murderer. The arguments about malice prepense were merely legal refinements, for if the murder was sheeted home to prisoner, it would not be necessary to show that there had been any bad blood between him and his victim. The crime, too, could not be reduced to manslaughter. It was murder or nothing. His Honor then passed on to analyse the evidence, closing at 5 o'clock.

The jury then retired to consider their verdict, the Judge intimating that the would return at 9 o'clock to see if they had. agreed upon their verdict, at which hour His Honor visited the jury, but finding they wercs-unable to agree upon a \yerdict, they were ordered to be locked up all night. [A teiegram in another column gives the verdict.] "■-• ,