ON THIS DAY - June 10, 1889 KAARIMBA THE KAARIMBA MURDER CASE. A VERDICT OF MANSLAUGHTER AGAINST THE FATHER. THE DAUGHTER FOUND GUILTY OF CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH. The trial of William MCarron and his daughter Jane for the murder of their infant daughter, at Kaarimba, on June 10 last, was continued at the Assize Court this morning, before Mr. Justice Kerferd. In relation to the point raised the previous evening, his Honour announced that he considered that evidence concerning a conversation between Mrs. MCarron and the male prisoner, when the former was on her death bed was inadmissible. Evidence concerning improper conduct on the part of the male prisoner towards his daughter Esther was also inadmissible, being irrelevant to the issue. He would also exclude any evidence relating to former children born of the prisoner Jane, because they could not be proved to be the children of the male prisoner nor could it be proved whether those children were murdered or died from accident. Esther MCarron, re-called, said that she had known her father and sister Jane to sleep in the same room on several occasions. Witness and her younger sister were now in service in Melbourne under assumed names. She had known her sister Jane to be enciente on previous occasions. Martha MCarron, another daughter of the male prisoner, deposed that she had known that her father and sister Jane had acted improperly. Dr. MKenna of Shepparton, deposed to having examined the female prisoner on 14th June. She had recently been confined, and was in a weak state. He then thought, and was still of the same opinion that the prisoner Jane was of weak intellect. Dr. Haynes, medical officer at the Beechworth gaol, deposed that the prisoner Jane was not an idiot, nor was she insane, but was a weak-minded girl. The evidence for the Crown was concluded before 10 oclock, the evidence of Dr. Drinkwater (who made a post-mortem examination of the body) having been put in in deposition form, the doctor having recently died. His evidence was that the child had been born alive, and died from suffocation. Mr. Smyths address to the jury was brief. He said the woman might be guilty only of concealment of birth, but the man was guilty of murder or manslaughter. Mr. Purves spoke at length. He contended that Jane MCarron was a poor weak-minded, degraded being, whose intelligence was not much raised above the level of instinct, and that she could not be found guilty of this crime. Regarding the male prisoner, Mr. Purves argued that had he suffocated the child its dead body would have borne marks of rough treatment. He contended that the child had been born in a chaff-heap during the absence of MCarron, and had been accidentally suffocated by the chaff, and that when the infant was given to MCarron by his daughter Jane it was then simply a dead body. Therefore he had not been guilty either of murder or manslaughter, but was guilty of concealment of birth. The prisoner Jane was of immensely powerful physical frame, an admirable specimen of the animal, but of very low moral faculties. Mr. Purves concluded his address by an appeal to the jurymen to give an honest verdict according to the evidence. The Judges summing up commenced at noon. He urged on the jurymen the necessity of considering evidence only in arriving at their verdict. He asked them to discard from their minds all feelings concerning the dreadful relations which had existed between the male and the female prisoners. He highly commended the manner in which the Crown had placed the case before them, which was characterised by great fairness. The facts contained in the evidence were uncontradicted by evidence for the defence, but in its place was an exhaustive and able review of the evidence by the counsel for the defence. His Honour pointed out that the prisoners might be guilty of any one of three offences—either murder, or manslaughter, or concealment of birth, and he proceeded to describe what actions or what intent were necessary to constitute each and every of these crimes. One of the prisoners might be guilty of one crime and the other prisoner of another. The mothers statement and the medical evidence showed that the child was born alive, and its death might have been compassed either by accident or intention. If the child was accidentally smothered in the chaff neither of the prisoners were guilty of murder, but both of them were guilty of the crime of murder if it was intended by them that the child should not live. To gain a knowledge of the intentions of the prisoners they must consider all surrounding circumstances such as suggested by these inquiries—Why did they go into the stable ? did the father remain there till the birth ? There was no provision made in the way of clothing for the child, and this was evidence in favour of concealment of birth, but not of the graver charge. If the male prisoner assisted at the birth of the child so as to conceal and keep secret his ecclesiastical offence, of incest, and did not take proper precautions, and the child lost its life thereby, then he was guilty of manslaughter. And if the child was carelessly laid on the chaff-heap and thus was suffocated, then one or either, or both of the prisoners would be guilty of manslaughter. The secret disposal of the body was an important factor with regard to the charge of murder, and ample evidence had been given in this case of the endeavour to secrete the body. There was nothing to be said in palliation of the male prisoner as being the author of the wrong which had fallen on the female prisoner, and it was a question for the jury now to decide as regarded the male prisoner whether he was guilty of the greater or second offence. The jury retired at a quarter to 1 oclock. The jury returned into court at 2.35 p.m., and, answering the associate, the foreman said :—We find William MCarron not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter. We find Jane MCarron not guilty of murder, not guilty of manslaughter, but guilty of concealment of birth. This is our unanimous verdict. The prisoners were remanded for sentence. The prisoners have been most stolid in their demeanour till today, when the woman frequently shed tears, especially during Mr. Purvess address and the judges summing up. The man also seemed to be uneasy during the day.
Posted on: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015