**33m
45-
she had gone to England immediately after the event, those bruises would still have been of the same importance and I should still have mentioned them. The jury might have drawn the same conclusion.
Br. Lint- The theory put forward by the Crown was nothing more than what the case for the Crown would be if Mary had given evidence. It made it easier for the jury to a ccept such a theory, particularly so, considering what the facts of Mary's evidence which supported the Crown's onse, was mentioned.
är. Maydent- Asks kr. Lim what he suggests should have been done should there have been a discharge and a new trial är. Lim says no- and Mr. Fraser then says that the Crown is in a predicament. The jury could not have been disaharged at Crown's application in order to fortify the Crown's case, which would have been the case here. Mr. Lim said the EXETERÉÈXIX case could have been
f adjourned till Mary could give evidenos. Thereupon Är. Fraser says that he did make this application and was refused- and rightly 80. If that had been granted it would have been at once a reason for quashing the conviction. Mr. Lin states the reason as far as he remembers for the case not being adjourned, was that the jury would forget what had been heard. And Mr. Fraser says that the reason for refusing the application must have been that the Crown's case would have been strengthened. Mx. Lâm says it was never mentioned and Er. Fraser says it was not mentioned but that was the Case. Mr. Limi
It would be fair to the acakkurkorkkinek appellant to have a new trial without the evidence of Mary Pine. That is what
May,
adiat. The judge did not see fit to exercise that discretion. Mr. resert It is impossible and the discharge of the jury is also impossible. It is possible to postpone the trial on the application
of the defence and the defence made no application.
Mr. Hayden-You made no application?
Mr. Lim-No, but I submit very strongly that without ary Pine's evidence there was no onse to to the jury. The appellanbe did not have a fair trial.
Mr. Jacks The Judge decided on that and he decided to go on with
trial.
ir. Mimi, states the case was not fair as Jury must have been influenced Hækkexfek when deliberating over the verdict that it was bad luck for the Crown that Mary could not give evidence
Why did my friend not apply for an adjournment ? why ask for adjournment - I submit that without Mary's
LAMI -
vidence there was no dage.
urely the appellant cannot have it both whymi The point before the Court is whether in view of all the facts there was a fair trial for the appellant I shall be greatly obliged if your lordships will explains in what waye the appellant would have the case decided in his favour both ways? Mr. Jacksi. I should like to hear your next point.
Limi The next point is on misdirection - that the defence was not properly put to the jury. Many quthorities quoted by *I. ¿raaer, but those authorities were where there was omission on part of the trial judge and the court of app end came to conclusion no miscarriage of justice.
-
The next point is there was no case to go to the Jury. I wall deal with that generally with the other ground of appeal where the verdict was against the weight of evidence. Insupport of these two grounds I submit evidence is equally consistent with innocence as with guilte
A Y Book-binder 23 Cr. Appeal Reports p.60
Y MRington: 22 Or." Appeal Report p.91.
My friend pointed out yesterday that in these two cases the appellant himself gave evidence.
Mr. Fraseri- I went further than that and I said I know of no case where an appeal has been dismissed in thás ground where the