-2-
49
deposition before Magistrate of p.10.
Mrs. Fairburn's evidence to effect that the boy & girl
she saw thrown in by Accused were the boy & girl she saw
when she got to bridge.
No direct evidence as to what if anything Accused did
to other 3 children.
9 Halsbury
P.588
para. 769 facts in this case equally
consistent with innocence as with guilt.
Reference in C. Col's opening statement to the evidence
of Mary Fine seriously prejudiced defence - admits warning by
C.J. to Jury to disregard it, but harm already done.
Although the C.J. warned Jury to disregard Mary Pine's
evidence yet his summing up was influenced by what had been
stated as to the evidence M.F. would give.
ment
Refers to p.p. 6 & 14 of summing up objects to state-
There is one piece of direct evidence etc.
importance.
#
• •
Will quote authorities to prove that notwithstanding
direction of C. J. to Jury to disregard st. re Mary Fine.
Roscoe Cr. Ev. 15 Ed.
p.121.
1 C.A.R. 155
R. v Dibble,
2 Lewin's
Crown Cases
p.227
R. V.
Hodge.
ADJCURIED.
3/10/34
2.30 p.m.
Same Counsel & Solss. (Appellant not present).
Lim 2 C.A.R. 244 R. v. Stoddart re proviso to
s.4(1) of Cr. Appeal Act 1907.
Proviso should not be applied if the Ct. cannot say
that the facts established are inconsistent with his
innocence.
R. V. Barron 9 C.A.R. 238 in spite of Judge's warning
conviction quashed.
R. V. Hemingway 8 C.A.R. 43.