Jury Fails To Agree On Johnson Manslaughter Charge

Press, Volume C, Issue 29511, 12 May 1961, Page 14

Jury Fails To Agree On Johnson Manslaughter Charge

(New Zealand Press Association)

AUCKLAND, May 11

After a retirement of six hours and threequarters, a jury in the Supreme Court at Auckland today failed to agree at the trial of Trig Johnson, aged 28, a farmhand, charged with the manslaughter of his six-vear-old son. Trig William Johnson, at Malakana on January 28.

His son. Walter Himiona Johnson, aged seven, who was jointly charged with him, was acquitted.

Trig Johnson was found guilty that with intent to do grievous bodily harm to Trig William Johnson he did cause actual bodily harm.

He and his wife. Stella Raiha Johnson, aged 23, were also found guilty that between December 1. 1960, and January 28, 1961, being persons having custody of a child under the age of 14, they wilfully neglected or exposed Trig William Johnson in a manner likely to cause injury to his health. Mr Justice Turner remanded the Johnsons for sentence, and ordered a new trial at the curreent criminal sessions for Trig Johnson on the charge of manslaughter. His Honour asked what arrangements had been made in respect of Walter Himiona Johnson, and was told that arrangements for his wellbeing were being made by the Child Welfare Department.

“I think that is a very good idea,” said his Honour. “I think similar arrangements should be made in respect of the other Johnson children.” Defence Address

Mr J. P. Hall, in his address on behalf of Johnson senior, said that no evidence had been adduced to show that he had been guilty of a consistent course of conduct encouraging Walter Johnson

A statement that Johnson had told his son Walter to “look after” the younger boy did not mean at all that the father had encouraged the assaults.

There was evidence that on the fatal night the father had been seen to stop the boys fighting. Mr Hall submitted that neither of the second charges had been established. Mr B. F. K. Preddle, for Mrs Johnson, said she had emerged only occasionally in the evidence, and that there was nothing in it on which she could be convicted on the charge of neglect, which she faced jointly with her husband.

Mr J. H. Wallace, counsel for the seven-year-old Walter Johnson, submitted that how the deceased boy’s injuries were received, and by whom they were inflicted, were matters of inference. No evidence had been called to show that the little boy, if he did inflict the fatal injuries, knew that he was doing wrong. Judge’s Summing-up

Summing-up, his Honour, referring to the manslaughter charge against Trig Johnson senior and Walter Johnson, said the jury had to consider two points—whether Trig Johnson junior died as a result of blows that were struck and whether Walter struck them. They had also to consider whether the blows were unlawful. If those things were proved, were it not for his age, the jury was in the position where the boy could be convicted of manslaughter, but the question arose whether because of his age he was entitled to be acquitted. “The law does not allow one person to strike another, but within a family there can be chastisement with cause,” said his Honour. “Can you satisfy yourselves that these blows come within that category?”

His Honour said that if the jury was not satisfied that Walter did not know

to assault his younger brother. Johnson senior could have been teaching the boys to defend themselves, which was one suggestion that could explain the evidence.

the difference between right and wrong, he must be acquitted.

Referring to the case against Trig Johnson senior, his Honour said: “You are invited to consider whether this was a systematic pattern of behaviour against the deceased boy, or whether the father failed as a parent, “It is a grave question for the accused, and to all children in the community. Do not be driven by any sense of sympathy for children as a whole.” his Honour said. Referring to the charge of doing actual bodily harm against the father, his Honour said that if the jury believed the evidence of the three men who went to the Johnson house on the Saturday night, they would find that somebody had given the boy a hiding, and his face was running with blood. “You might consider that when the parents returned home from the hotel Trig had not received a hiding,” said his Honour. “But when the three men arrived. the mother and Walter had gone milking. The father was in the house, and the little boy was black and blue. Who did it? The evidence goes a long way to show that the father alone gave the hiding.”