A CHARGE OF MURDER

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 824, 24 May 1910, Page 6

A CHARGE OF MURDER

CORKILL'S TRIAL.

THE JURY FIND MANSLAUGHTER.

AND RECOMMEND CLEMENCY.

Before tho big doors of the Supreme Court were opened yesterday morniug, a large crowd of people were waiting to gain admission to watch the proceedings in tho case of Robert Corkill, charged with murder. When Corkill emerged from tho cells and came forward in the dock a hush fell on the Court. Corkill, with hands placed on the barrier, peered round the Court, distinguishing the people with apparent difficulty, and occasionally giving a slight nervous twitch as his eyes went round the Court. Subsequently he asked permission to sit down, and wore dark jftpctacles. Tha registrar read out tho following charge That, on March 10, 1910, at Wellington, he did kill and murder one Christopher Denis Smith. When asked to plead, Corkill replied, feelingly, "Not guilty, your Honour." The Pane!. The following jury was empanelled: Benjamin Trueberry Gardiner (foreman), Arthur Etchells, Henry Jupp, Hugh Alien, George James Thomson, John Evans, Albert Henry Rushton, Henry Tiffer, Samuel Murray, Joseph William Backhouse, Walter Scott Bedford, and John Percy Coyne. Mr. M. Myers conducted tho Crown case, and Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared for Corkill. "The case, gentlemen/' said Mr. Myers in opening the Crown case, "tho case that you have tho misfortune to have to try is a charge of murder, the most serious charge that is known to our law. The case has a pathetic is pathetic to see a man of the prisoner's age, who lias always "borne a good character, in the position in which he! finds himself. to-day." Mr. Myers then outlined the case as previously reported. His Honour (he added) would have something to say as to whether Corkill was justified in carrying a loaded revolver, a practice which might be quite common in less civilised countries. Two Doctors. Dr. Izard stated that his attention was called to the dead body of Smith, lying in the passage-way near GO Pipitea Street, at about G. 30 p.m., and gave evidence as to blood on the shirt, etc.

Dr. Kington Fyffe stated that on making a post-mortem examination of deceased ho found a bullet wound in the left breast. He described the nature of the injuries inilicted, and added that the course of tho bullet was slightly downward. The cause of death was haemorrhago of the pericardium, the left ventricle of the heart having been pierced. The. "downward declension" of the bullet might havo been caused, the doctor continued, by the bullet grazing a rib in front . Mr. Wilford: The accused is over 60 years of age, and I want to ask you if a man who has eight toes off can run? Mr. Myers said in his address to the jury: "One of' tho questions which you are to consider is whether the accused could havo got away." Witness: He would very likely fall. His Honour: He could have walked? —Witness: Oh, yes; he could have walked.

CorkilPs Boots Taken Off in Court. Corkill, who had taken off his boots and stockings, was now walked out in front of the jury-box, and examined by Dr. Fyffe. Only the big toe on each foot remained, and Corkill apparently had, some difficulty in walking steadily. Mr. Wilford (to the doctor): Can you understand that a man with toes like that cannot walk away, quickly on an uneven surface?— Witness: Oh, yes; I can quite understand that. If a man of that age, suffering from other physical infirmities, were beLted on the back of the head and on the forehead, and knocked down, might he not become quite dazed and not know actually where ho was?— Quite possibly. . Do you think he would be a man able to tako his own part in case of a violent attack, endangering his life?—He is a man of very strong physique. The doctor added in re-examination that Corkill could walk better with his boots on than he had done in court without them.

Thomas Warnock, draper, now of Wanganui, stated that Smith had been employed by the firm of Warnock and Adkin. His services wero dispensed with on the day before his death. Eye Witnesses. A grocer's assistant, Reginald Walter Clifford, stated that as Corkill rose he drew a revolver from his right-hand trousers pocket and shot Smith. Smith was standing erect at tho time, quite close to Corkill. The two men were talking excitedly, both before' and after the shot was fired. At first Corkill stood at the entrance, saying, "I am in charge here," but when he began to walk up and down witness passed in and saw a bullet wound in Smith's vest and shirt, and blood flowing. In cross-examination Clifford said that he did not hear Smith say, "I'll kill you, you ," nor did he see Smith kick Corkill while the latter was on the ground. Ho saw Corkill rubbing his face afterwards. Walter Styles, bootmaker, described the scene as it appeared to him from the corner of Molesworth and Pipitea Streets. He saw a big bump on Corkill's left eye, Corkill was smothered in dirt, and appeared to have been pretty badly handled. Corkill said, "He's lying there; if he gets up I'll give him another. I've got it here." Leo Cleary, a bov of 11, whoso parents live at 7 Murphy Street, also stated that Corkill was roughly handled and kicked by Smith before the shot was fired. As the two men camo out on to the street Smith struck Corkill on tho back of the head, and said "I'll kill you." Somewhat similar evidence regarding the occurrence was given by William Edward Alexander (commercial traveller), Constablo ll'Kelvie (who produced the bullet taken from Smith's body during the post-mortem examination), Constable Callery (who produced the revolver taken fro mCorkill, then loaded in four chambers, and also containing an empty shell), Oliver Mewhinncy (civil servant), and Ernest Ford (pastrycook, of Molesworth Street). Further particulars of the tragedy wero supplied in the box by Inspector Ellison, who stated that he took Corkill to the Police Station in a cab. Corkill said: "I don't want to run away. He struck me twice, and knocked me down. I then dTew upon him. I shot him, but I did not intend to kill him. When I. went to the house he was ill bed with his boots on. I told him to get up, as the furniture was to be removed in the morning. Ho threatened my life in tho house, and pushed me out." Corkill moro than once repeated tho statement that he was a bailiff from Hnrcourt's, and at tho station, lie asked-. "How is he?" Witness replied: "I am told he is dead." He replied: "Oh my God, I did not intend to kill him. I just fired at random. I was on the ground when I fired." When charged with the "wilful murder" of Smith, ho said: "Oh, God, not wilful; I did not intend to kill him." This concluded the Crown case, and Mr. Wilford called Warder W. G. Brown, who stated that Corkill required assistance up or down steps. Plea of Self Defence Set Up. The accused Corkill, giving evidence, stated that ho would bo OS years of ago on June 18 next. He had been employed for somo time as bailiff, and previously, for -13 years, had been a chef at hotels and clubs. He had been chef to Sir Julius Yogol, had joined tile armed constabulary at Ilokitika, and, in ISG9, saw active service against the Maoris in tho Wanganui district, at tho attack on tho Great Pa. He obtained the old age pension twelve months ago. While acting as bailiff ho had had his life threatened several times. In Pirio Street, a man named James attacked him, and lie was punished by tho Court. A man threatened him in Ellice Street.

with a poker, and ho only saved himself by producing his revolver. His Honour (to Mr. Wilford): Ho had no business to arm himself. You cannot set up that a bailiff has a right to go armed, and shoot people if they ill-treat him. Mr. Wilford: I am not going to make it as strong as that. Corkiil stated that lie went to exercise •, distraint upon tho promises in Pipitea } Street, and found Smith, a lodger, asleep i upstairs. The women left tho house at i 1 p.m., but he allowed Smith to sleep all afternoon. Later .in tho day, ho canie back, and met Smith downstairs. Ho said to Smith, "Mr. Smith, will you \ please put your things together and c leave the house this evening or to-morrow " morning?" Smith knocked him down, . and kicked him, , and witness, fearing for his life, fired the revolver. Cross-examined, Corkiil denied that he , had said, after shooting Smith, "He's lying there; if he gets up, I'll give him ! another. I've got it here." It was only fright that had caused him to use the and he had' fired at random. At this stage Corkiil was apparently overcome, and shufilcd "back to the dock, with tears streaming from his eyes. "A Man in the Twilight of Life," Addressing the jury, Mr. Wilford asked if self-defence of a cripple of G8 was to "be measured by tho same rulo as that of a young and alort man. Hero was a man in the twilight of life, who, because of a physical infirmity, could not run away, could not retaliate, and could not stand up for himself. Even if Corkiil had fully intended to hit Smith when he fired, would he not bo excused, seeing that his action was prompted by fear and by the thought that he was in dire peril, at tho hands of a coward? Mr. Myers replied that the jury must not he led away from the'path of duty because of the pathos of. the story told. It was a pathetic case, and, if the junrecognised that, they might add suck recommendation as they thought fit as a rider to their verdict. The case demonstrated, above all things, the great danger that might arise if it became an established practice that citizens,'should carry loaded firearms. If the jury decided that Corkiil had no intention to kill, he must be acquitted of the murder charge; but, if it were found that he ought not to have used the weapon, tho jury were bound to consider whether he was guilty. <?f manslaughter. Corkiil could have called out, but ho did not-do so. Apparently he could not run, but he did not attempt even to walk away. As he rose from the ground, he pulled tho weapon out of his pocket, and discharged it. Would it not have been sufficient for him to say, "I have a revolver," or for him to show it? I Remarks of the Chief Justice. Summing up, tho Chief Justice said that tho case was unlike many other murder trials, because there was io doubt as to tho cans© of death. There could be no question that Smith had boen killed by tho revolver shot fired by Corkiil. The question was: "Is it murder?" If the shot had been fired recklessly, that would still bo sufficient to prove murder. It it had been fired with intention, then, of course, it was murder. If there was no intention to kill, but if the. shot was still fired recklessly, that' would still be muider. Another question was: "Is there anything in the case to reduce it from murder to ' manslaughter?" If the jury came to the conclusion that the shot had been intended to wound, but not to kill, then Corkiil was guilty of manslaughter. Two defences had been set up to show thai: ' the verdict should be , one of "Not ; guilty." The first defence was that he ; did not intend to shoot Smith, at all, ' that he only fired to frighten Smith. That was not what he had said when arrested. He had said: "I did it in selfprotection." He had not suggested that the TevolveT went off by accident. In very special circumstances, tho law allowed the use of firearms, if the person using them believed, on reasonable grounds, that he could not otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm. The jury would have to go as'far as that before they could bring in a verdict of "Not guilty. - " The scene of the tragedy had not been a lonely suburb; the 'affair occurred in daylight and in a street quite close to traffic, and Corkiil might have called out for assistance. ' Moreover, the shot wos not fired until the assault was finished. Smith was standing beside him, and Corkiil was almost up on his feet when he fired. If the jury decided (1) that he fired under reasonable apprehension of death, becausc of the violence of the attack, and (2) that he believed, on reasonable grounds, that there was no other escape for him, ho acquitted. Happily, the community was not one in which lethal weapons, such as revolvers, bowie knives, and daggers, were carried. Our race did not usually carry weapons, although some of our race in America did so, with tho result that there was great loss of life every year. The New Zealand law was codified, and was quite- clear, leaving nothing, in such a case as this, to the discretion of the judge or anyone else. Verdict and Rider. The jury retired at 3.43 o'clock, and returned to Court ■at 4.58 with the verdict: "Guilty of manslaughter." ~As a rider, the following was added:— The jury makes a very strong tccommeudation for mercy, on the ~ ground of the prisoner's age and frailty; and on the ground of provocation. Wo are of opinion also that the prisoner Teally thought that his life was in danger, but, 'such thought was, in our opinion, unreasonable; His Honour said that he would defei sentence until Saturday, because he wished to give due weight to the jury's recommendation. Corkiil wag then conducted below.