CHARGE OF MURDER.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1527, 24 August 1912, Page 5

CHARGE OF MURDER.

VERDICT OF MANSLAUGHTER , , SEVEN YEABS' IMPRISONMENT; . IBr Teleirr»ph.-Pre3i Association.) „ Auckland, August 23. On the evening of June 5 Inst at a Maori pa' near Tβ Kaha, Bay of Plenty, a crime was committed. A party of Natives, with ono European, had been drinking during most of the day, and a violent quarrel in thn evening elided in a young Maori, To Hamnna Wirepa, being fatally stabbed. ■ Before Mr. Justice Cooper and a common jury, Temehnua Wire-pa was chargeil with til? murder of his younger brother, and also with wounding with intent- William Nowland and Tunatoaro Wirepa, the latter being another brother of deceased. Mr. W. P. Kmlcan, who was assigned -tho task of .defending .prisoner by tho Justico 'Department, conducted , Wirepa's defence, and tho Crown Prosecutor, (the Hon. J. A. Tolc) appeared for the Crown. A number of witnesses gave evidence at length regarding the affray and tho condition of tho accused at tho time. Mr. Endean, for the defence, said that what had to be considered wns whether Vomehnna Wirepa .was in a fit inentnlsfato at tho time of the criuio to know what he was doing. They had had evidence to show that Nowland had taken six bottles of whisky to tho pa . on tho morning of June 5. It was clear from., the ovidenco that accused must have littfT at least half a bottle of liquor by four o'clock in tho afternoon. Moreover, accused had had no dinner and no ton, so that tho effect of the liquor would be peater. Then again the members of the party were drinking tho lirmor "neat." The jury was entitled to inter that accused's stnto of mind was not normal, and if the jurors had the slightest doubt on this point it would be their duty to return a verdict of manslaughter. Thero was no evidence before them that accused and deceased were on unfriendly terms on tho day of the crime. 'Counsel suggested that thcro was a general melee in tho "cook house," and accused's mind was inflamed with tho liquor ho had consumed. All intent to commit murder, therefore, was destroyed.

His Honour, in summing up, said that though (he case had ]»on a short,one, it presented complications. Ho would first explain to tho jury the law on tho subject. They had tho power, if they so found it, to brins in a verdict of manslaughter, although the prisoner stood indicted on a charge of murder. Tho Court of Appeal had laid down that when a man accused of murder was so drunk when tho crimo was committed as to destroy intent, which is necessary to l>o associated with tho crime of murder, then tho crime was manslaughter, and not murder. Counsel for tho defence had asked tho jury to reduce tho capital'cliargo to one of manslaughter, and ho (his Honour) thought that that was tho only course open to Mr. L'ndc'an. There was no' doubt that there was apparently a great deal of liquor consumed in the pa- that day. It was his opinion that if tho liquor had not been taken in. tho sad tragedy would not have happened. Not the least sad feature of the affair was that the parties were all relatives, find tho jury must consider this fact-. Prisoner's brother and' l sister had given evidence against him, am! tho sister had plainly said that in her own mind there wus a feeling of nngor .against accused for killing thoir brother. AH the witnesses had said that accused was sobflr. Tho jury, however, had hoard tho evidence of tho drinking, and must draw their own conclusions. If tho jury thought that tho reasonable inference to draw was that tho quantity of liquor which had been consumed wns sufficient to take- away nil intent on accused's part, their duty would be to reduce the charge, to ono of manslaughter. Tho jury retired for 35 minutes, and returned with a verdict of "pruilty of manslaughter." His Honour (addressing prisoner): The jury havo taken a very merciful view of flic case; I do not say that they nro wrong in thoir decision. I shall have to pass a severe sentence upon you. I will, of course, take into consideration that tho jury have acquitted you of any intent of murder. Deceased was your own brother. I can sentence you to nothing less thn-n seven years' imprisonment, and that is Hie most lenient sente-nco I enn pass upon you,