2
II
MISDIRECTION.
(a) That the learned Trial Judge did not
with sufficient clearness state to the jury what the main
defence was, namely, that one or more of the three children
other than those seen by Mrs. Fairburn were either playing
in the Nullah ob accidently fell over into the Nullah while
throwing stones.
(b) That the learned Trial Judge misdirected
the Jury in his Summing Up with reference to "the two bruises
onary Pine's neck.
(p. 14 of the Summing Up).
He also alleged misdirection on other points, viz.
(a) The identification by Mary Pine when he
no
said "It may be more than that."
A
(p. 13 of the Summing UP).
(b) "The alternative is not to accept at the
moment Eric Davie's' evidence."
Gentlemen
G
15
(p. ## of the Summing Up).
(c) The statement "It was suggested to you
that the girl and the boy whom Mrs. Fairburn saw
thrown over were Fay Bromley and Tony Flood." (p. 8 of the
Summing Up).
(a) & (e) Were two other points which Counsel
for the Appellant subsequently abandoned, it is therefore
unnecessary to state them.
Section 78A (2) of the Criminal Procedure Amendment
Ordinance, 1933 reads as follows:-
On an appeal against conviction and, subject to the provisions of sub-section (5) of this section and section 78B, the Full Court shall allow the appeal if they think that the verdict of the jury should be set aside on the ground that it is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence, or that the judgment of the court before whom the appellant was convicted should be set aside on the ground of a wrong decision of any question of law, or that on any ground there was a mis- carriage of justice, and in any other case shall dismiss the appeal:
Provided that the Full Court may, notwithstanding that they are of opinion that the point raised in the appeal might be decided in favour of the appellant, dis- miss the appeal if they consider that no substantial mis- carriage of justice has actually occurred.
74