-3-
R. V. Beecham
1921 3 K.B. p.464.
Counsel for D. puts his case
p.470
Summing up might have misled the jury.
De fence not put up with sufficient clearness.
Authorities.
R. v. Dinnick
3 C.A. p. 77.
Defence should be put fairly before the jury.
re "Alternative not to accept Eric Davies' evidence ".
63
R.
༥ ༠
Immer 13 C. A. p. 22.
Summing up must be read as a whole "Was the defence clearly stated"?
B.
V. Solvosky 1 C.^. p.99.
Stated matters which were not proved
R.
V. Bruhin 11 C. A. 276 and 277.
p14. 3rd. Admits caution
p.13 of summing up.
too strong.
Bruises not important evidence, except by reason of statement
made by Fraser.
R.
Davies
22 C. A. p. 24. p.24.
4. Identification by Mary Pine.
"It 'may' be no more than that".
is a misdirection it should be "can" be no
What else could it be.
more than that.
(b) Alternative of Eric Davies' evidence
pis
Small Point
p.14.
Admits 2 thrown in not fell in.
(c) It was suggested
p.6.
already dealt with.
The boy and girl thrown in by Mrs. F. we re
the boy and girl she saw rescued.
9.10.34
Resumed at 10 a.m.
in her opinion
Adjourned at.4.30 p.mn.
Coram Jacks and Hay den.
Lim/
R.
V.
Beecham
Misdirection by way of ommission.
Did J make a statement which removed from the minds of the
jury a statement made by Counsel.
Misdirection material.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.