-31-
the defence put up before the jury an absurd one reference made to.4. of fudge's notes.
43
V. Cohen. Or. Appeal Reports. Vol. 2.207.
e 3 tests put before their Lordships by Mr. Lim, being applicable on point of fact? Reads judgaent
2nd para. These three tests are applicable to a case where there was a misdirection on fact.
-
br. Fraser Agrees. Strongly objected originally to my suggestion
t onus in onse should rest on Crown to prove that Jury onme to O conclusion. Then I understand that my friend does not suggest that that part of the paragraph applies in any onse wha tao over t
Sr. Lami The first part applies to where there was a misdirection of law. There is no doubt about it.
Un same page 207 – exphasizes last ground.
Vol. 7o. 4 - head notes.
nol case on its own i acts.
p.12 last sentence of the judɛment.
The question here,
therefore is whether property directed the Jury would have returned the aɖme verdict. Se feel it impossible to say with any certainty that they would. The only judgaent, therefore, that we can give is that the appeal must be allowed.
If there is a misdirection there is a miscarriage of justice. I submit in this case before your lordships there is a miscarriage of justice due to the fact that certain pieces of evidence, I am referring to the evidence of Mary Pine, had been mentioned to the jury in the Crom's opening and misdirection Was in reference to tŘBRETËREtx that evidence.
resers gain I quarrel with my friend. My friend s tated all my
bhi sal on.
That is a particularly incorrect statement. Calls attention to Hepworth 4 r. App cal.
Hr. Lins That comes under the other heading - that would be dases where the Court came to the conclusion that there was no mi senrriage of justice. 2 Hala, p.276 païa 405.
The next ground of appeal is that the defence was seriously prejudiced.
Again I submit that the authorities quoted by my friend yesterday were all cases in which the evidence which was disclosed to the jury or given before the jury, either EXHICKÉ EX **æİİİİXX unintentionally or accidentally cazibe successfully removed from the minds of the jury by the judge's warning.
de Ye Jucaa,】 Ur. Auneal n. 234. Instardy roceeding. The
erjury was committed at the Bastardy Proceeding in reference to 3 letters. Svidence ample - corroborated. Froceeded to remove from the jury's mind the illegally discovered facts. Focta disclosed easily severed from the facts of the case.
Voates • 5 Cr. Annesi, 193, Evidence of another larceny. XKIXXERÀ accidentally disclosed to jury. Bere again I submit tint this piece of evidence which was disclosed to the Jury could be successfully removed from the minds of the jury by the warning from the trial judge. Facts not xxxixx involved with facts of the onge. No miscarriage of justice.
V. Kurlash 11 Or. Appeal pil66.
Or, inpeal ni166, Head Hote. "ben a defendent has been a aked an inadmissible question which the judge has di sallowed, the Court will consider in each case whether the prejudice created against the defendant by such question, has b en sufficiently dispelled by the judge.
169 That is sufficient. There might be a case' where the question asked is so serious in its application to the particular facts of the case, that it might not be sufficient to tell the jury to banish it from their minds.