DEATH SENTENCE

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 120, 14 February 1921, Page 6

DEATH SENTENCE

TIMARU MURDER CASE PLEA OF INSANITY FAILS JURY FINDS MATTHEWS GUILTY By Telegraph.—Press Association. Christchurch, February 12. The trial of Reginald Matthews for tho alleged murder of Clarence Wagstaft’c at Timaru, on October 27 last, was concluded ut the Supreme Court, before His Honour Mr Justice Herdman A verdict of "Guilty" was returned, and the prisoner was sentenced to death. Addressing the jury, Mr A. T. Donnelly, Crown Prosecutor, recapitulated tho main points on which tho Crown’s case rested. By raising the defence of insanity, accused’s counsel had admitted that Matthews had fired the fatal shot, though by reason of mental disease it was claimed that he must bo held free from responsibility for- his crime, and from the punishment that normally would accompany it. There were many grades of mental disease by law. In section 43 of the Crimes Act there was set a definite and distinct standard of insanity. "Armed Like a Soldier.”

The crime committed by Matthews, said Mr. Donnelly, was an ordinary offence, committed from ordinary motives, by an ordinary individual Che only difference was that accused was reckless and criminal beyond the average. He was in imminent peril of recapture by the polio:, who would at once send him back to gaol. As soon as he saw that capture was likely he drew a pistol and shot Wagstaffe dead. Tho only difference between him nnd an ordinary criminal was that he was prepared to shoot and kill. Counsel would submit that there was no need to consider the state of accused’s mind from an alienist’s point of view. ‘He had asked Dr. Croebie if he could find any act of accused at the time of the murder that was other than that of a sane, though desperate, man. The doctor had admitted that he could not. The onus of proof was on the defence, and if the evidence faileel to show insanity the defence must fail. He submitted that the whole case for insanity had withered and faded. Tho case was extraordinary only in the criminality of accused. If accused’s life had not Peen one series of conflicts with the police and floutings of the law; if his record had been a clean one, the defence, ho suggested, would not have put forward the plea of insanity. Tho plain truth of the matter was that Matthews was merely in tho position of an outlaw. That was shown by the fact that wherever he was found in the quiet and peaceful cities of New Zealand, Matthews was prowling about armed like a soldier. Everybody war his enemy; everybody’s hand was against him; he was prepared to commit murder to avoid capture. It was submitted that Matthews had committed the murder of Wagstaff e at Timaru. Judge’s Summing Up. His Honour,. in summing up, quoted the legal definition of insanity. Applied to the present case, it must be interpreted as meaning that accused did not understand that he was shooting and killing, and that his insanity prevented him from knowing that what he waif doing was wrong. "Does the' evidence satisfy you that he did not know t'hat he was shooting a man, and that it was wrong?" asked His Honour oi the jury. “It it does, you will acquit him on the ground of insanity. If, on the other hand, you are convinced that he knew that the shooting was wrong, that if he Shot he was likely to kill, and that in shooting he was doing wrong, the defence of insanity goes, ano if you are convinced that he was there you will convict him.” His Honour, after summarising the medical evidence, asked: (1) "Is there sufficient evidence called by the Crown to prove that Wagstaff© was killed by accused at Timaru ou October 27? (2) Has accused, by the evidence, fulfilled the onus cast upon him of establishing to your satisfaction that, if he killed Wagstaffe at Timaru on October 27, he was sufficiently insane to be within the meaning of the code. If you are satisfied after considering the evidence that the prisoner did commit the act of murder on October 27, but that he did not know the nature ana quality of the act he was committing, then it is your duty, under those circumstances, to find that the prisonei was insane at the time of the committal of the offence, and to acquit him on t'he ground of insanity. If, . aftei weighing the evidence, you take the view that insanity has not been proved, ana that Matthews understood tho nature and quality of tho o act he was committing, your plain duty is to convict him. If you have any doubt about the matter, then it is your duty to acquit him.” The jury retired at 11.37 and returned an hour later with a verdict oi "Guilty”; and, further, it had found accused to be sane at the time of Wit commission of the crime.

AVhen the usual question was put by the Registrar, Matthews, who was labouring under deep stress, bit hard into his lip for a moment. It appeared as if he were about to speak, but no words came.

His Honour placed the black cap on his head and passed the sentence oi death.

The jury thanked the Court for the courtpsy extended to them, and His Honour complimented the police officers concerned in the case on the manner in which the evidence had been collected and presented to the Court.