4
(a) submit that statement on p.13 of sup "It
no more than that" is a misdirection on this ground
should have been "It can be no more than that."
51
may be
-
It
(b) "the alternative is not to accept the evidence.of
Eric Davies.
Defence accepted the evidence of E. Davies.
(c)
The words "it was suggested" was a misdirection
was the definite evidence of Mrs. F. that the boy & girl
she saw thrown in by appellant were the same children she
saw rescued.
(a) & (e). (d) point not raised by Fraser but only
by C. J.
(e) That point only mentioned in Mary Pine's evidence.
Mr. Lim states he now withdraws points (d) & (e)
Court Adjourned to 10.00 a.m. on 9.10.34
it
James J. Hayden 3.10.34
9/10/34
Same counsel & Solrs. (Appellant not present)
Mr Lim refers to R. v. Buchan this was misdirection
-
by way of omission. In this case 1. J. should have put
defence fairly to Jury his reference to evidence of E. Davies
was such as to dispel from minds of Jury the defence raised.
by Appellant's Col.
R. V. Hall 11 C. A.R..227 - test to be applied in
considering whether there was substantial miscarriage of
Justice.
-
Rex v. Ellsom 7 C. A.R. p.4 refers to p.11 Impossible to
say that in this case if there had been no misdirection that
the Jury would have returned same verdict.
R. v. Wann 7 C.A.R. 135 refers to p.138 on same point.
Submit no evidence on which Jury could convict in this
case. The 2 cases put up
by Defence were equally
consistent. At most Crown case mere suspicion. If bruises
on Mary Pine's neck if it had not been mentioned that