CHARGE OF MURDER.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1364, 15 February 1912, Page 6

CHARGE OF MURDER.

iIRUNKEN MAN'S RESPONSIBILITY.

COUNSEL'S ARGUMENT FAILS.

(By Telegraph—Press Association.) 'iv *':.:'■.Chrlstchurch,'Fobruary 14. At the Supremo Court, in tho case against James Gibbons, charged with the attempted murder of Airs. Elizabeth Mackenzie at Sydenham on December 18, My. Donnelly, counsel for , tho accused, did '. not call evidence, but addressed the jury. Ho.said there could bo no question as'.to the atrocity of the attack, and the only defence possible was that at the time vf the occurrence accused was mud, and liiiiipiibloof knowing what he was doing. ll.'a man, though drunk, attacked anyone while still capable of i'ormiug an intention, he was liable, but when in drinking he brought himself to a state of madness, he was free of criminal responsibility. Counsel quoted remarks by Mr. Justice Patterson in n case against a. man, Crewes, where the learned ■ judgo had declared that intent had to be shown and that tho man's state of intoxication was important in its bearing on the point as to whether or not the man was nble to. form an intention, mid that where a man was unable to form an intention he was not liable. Tho very severity of the wound showed that the man was mad. It/almost spoke and proved that the man wii? past being merely'drunk. A quiet inoffensive man would not have committed sudh a. deed for the trivial postponement of a game of cards unless he had lost his Teasou temporarily. Drunkenness was no excuse, but where drink brought about lunacy there was no criminal offence iu Jaw.

His Honour, addressing the jury, said that a man normally was held to intend the results of his acts, and whore a man Bttacked a. w:oinau with a razorj't would bo generally held that., tho intention was> to ;ki!l, but in the. present case the \,h<v. was that the man was insane. Insanity was defined by statute in New Zealand, •which declared that every man should be held to be sane until proved to the contrary, and that no man labouring under imbecility or a diseased mind would be convicted, nor where a man was incapable of understanding or knowing what he was doing, or that his act was wrong. Tho line was drawn sharply between men who were insane and thoso whose moral rcftraint had been broken down by drink, prunkenness was not a disease of the .nind. . It was quite clear that Gibbons intended to cut the woman's throat. He was sufficiently sober to know that a yazor would cut her throat, and to find it. So that to say that, ho was incapable of knowing what he was doing was to his J ll ill cl absurd. His remark to Mrs. Hensley, that ho "would do for" the woman was a further proof of his capability of intention. Undoubtedly his moral restraint had been destroyed by the drink. The jury had a duty to the public in the'case.

After retiring for SO minutes the jury ■returned , ' a verdict of guilty, with a iecmnmemlation to mercy on account of the prisoner's previous good character. .•' Flis Honour at''a later stage in the ■prococdirtgs sentenced Gibbons to five years' imprisonment.