-27-
39
A. Ya
Wann. 7 Uz. Aqueal teports p.135, My friend directed your lordship to certain passages in that case, but I should like to direct your lordships to p.138. to 139.
That was another sexual crime. A girl of 13. No complaint made for two months. Divergence as to date given by the girl not sufficiently gone into by judge in his direction. The girl was considered untrustworthy even by her mother. även then the verdict was not considered unreacabàtade there was substantial corroboration of her story, but the date was very important and the judge omitted to enlarge upon it. The 0.0.k, said if it were clear that the jury hadepted the 8th as they may have done, the verdict would have to stand,
彎
v. liever 1 r. Appeal Reports p.11. Qualification of the words ust" "would" and now "reasonably probable". The question you have to decide if you find there was misdirection Was it "reasonably probable" that the jury would have returned a verdict of guilty if there had been no misdirection.
R. v. Rufine 7 Ur. Appeal reports p. 49. In addition to the "gap alleged by my friend (there we no "gap in this case) There the judge expressed himself very forcibly on the defence of alibi. "Here is a day who has set up an alibi which is no shadow of an alibi from possible point of view." It was that direction and the'gap' on which the Court quashed the conviction. Even then the Court said at the same time the Court feels that this is one of those cases where the pritoner is released owing to a technic ali ty. There were discrepancies in the evidence for the prosecution. wased only one shop assistant who identified the prisoner. The glass stolen was stated to be a "Zeiss "glass when it was not. Other people were present in the shop who might have committed the cri e.
There
R. v. Turkington - 22 Dr. Appeal Reports p.21. There was evidence by the appellant and nothing to contradict it that the blow on the woman's' chin was given when she was endeavouring to i orce an entry through the door of the flat and before she climbed on to the window. That was the only evidence as to how she got the plow. Here it is the other way “bout.
A. v. Bookbinder - 23 Or. Appeal reports p. 60. at p. 59.
The only evidence was that he ran away. There was no evidende that the man had ever stood on the book-maker's atoo1. Not any other evidence to connect him with the book-maker.
Guerin 23 Cr. Appeal Heports p. 41. kkm The head note contradicts the ground which my friend put before you.
MT. Ime In the event of a discrepancy of the head no te and the judgment, the judgment must be taken.
Mr. Fraseri- In that case less than the whole storę was placed before the jury. if your lordships refer to the judgment you will see that that weighted weighed at least as much with the C. C. A. as the other ground in quashing the conviction.
Rv. Brown 22 Or. Ao cal deports p.139. The appellant gave an account of what happened. The main point of law was admitted in the summing up. It was not alleged that the defence was not properly put to the jury. That case seems to have no bearing, on the present appeal.
H. 7. Smith: 11 Or. Appeal Reports p.229. at p. 238. I have already dealt with that case at length and your lordships will note that evidence of the death of other wonen was advanced to prove system. There is no evidence of system in this case. The evidence of the throwing over of the other two children, even if taken only to rebut the defence of accident, would be admissible. In the Smith case particulars xixix surrounding the deaths of the women in the baths were admitted and the C. C. A. said at p. 238 in our opinion it was opon to the Frosecutor to give and the judge was right in aduitting, avidence of the facts surrounding the death of the two
WOMEN,