44
jerriagey 23 mushed.
kumal p.190 .188 -
n.
case rend out, Conviction
The Te tinged) for 30 1.1692 Hatter stated in the opening not proved. by evidence.
dsby
Prosecuting Counsel in that onne overstated the case in his opening. Previous quarrel with the decensed, " p.161. *pplication for leave to appeal against conviction and to call for further evidence. * Judgment .162.
My friend submitted this case was on all fours with this sase in that it was a case where certain statements were unde at the opening which was not pro ved. Judgment was given because the court ws of the opinion that after four days trial the expressions complained of could not have dominated the opinion of the jury. Their opinion was at the end of four days' trail the jury had forgotten what had been told them in the opening of the rown's case,
Had a warning been given ↑
Br. Line to warning.
Kaser
I should like my friend'
a law tiere must be a warning.
auttion
for that.
steia. p.162 about 15 lines from the bottom of the page. There was not a word of warnin; eta.* Compare this case with the case before your eẹ lordships - there is no warning which em be taken as confirmation of a reminder to the juzy.
dr. Fragers I think that supports my case,
AX Layden -b you gest, kr. bám, it would be better not to give any warning ↑
Br Lint-o, far from it. in this case I submit were facts as stated in the Crown's opening are so involved with the rest of the evidence wfore the Jury, (re the evidence of Mary Pine) that it was impossible for the jury to get rid from their mind: what they have heard as to what Sary wine would say, by the My friend put certain suggestions to the jury that the appellent must have pushed or thrown the other three children into the mullah. That submission was based entirely on the evidence What Mary Pine would say ●
Kr. Eraseri kr. ¿Taser objects saying that he was entitled to say this ad in his opening » EZ, Lim does not many he accused re Fraser. #T. Hayden reiterates that the Chief Justice on several occasions all throughout the summing up, expressed to the jury that there was no direct evidence whatsoever to show that Eichael Fine Was thrown in. Time after time was the jury impressed with
that fnet.
The fnets mentioned re Mary's evidence are so extrion bly involved in the whole case impossible to be removed by any warning.
1. Two brui ses. bruises.
-
2. Mary's identification
3. children standing on the rails
4. Appeallant on the bridge.
sven the judge showed signs of being so influenced.
The facts mentioned in v. Drineos. to the Jury by the Crown in its opening appeal was that there was a previous quarrel on p.162. Was not a vital piece of evidence. (Long discussion and Er. Hayden submits that it was a vital picos of evidence that there was a previous quarrel.
ense
B States in this case Mary ine ne the only eye witness of the orine and the only witness of the whole o ríme. The rest of the evidence puts the Crown ense - at very highest only ei reumatantial. (Two bruises on Anry's neak- mention made to jury not removable from their minds.
If the Court had not been informed or known that Enry had been caught by the neck and thrown into the nullah there would have been no reference mader as to the marks on Mary's neck. Mr. Tasezi That is not strictly true. If Mary Pine had never been able téme and mec me at all. Suppose I had