BILL THROWN OUT

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 45, 17 November 1926, Page 3

BILL THROWN OUT

COLLAPSE OF MURDER CASE SELF-ACCUSED AND SELF. EXONERATED Dominion Special. Christchurch. November 16. In his charge to the grand jury at the opening of the Supreme Court criminal sessions to-day, Mr. Justice Stringer, referring to the charge of murder against Owen Francis Joseph McKee, of Timaru, said the case presented some unusual features, because the evidence against McKee was given by himself. It appeared that McKee assisted the other man, whom he met on July 14, giving him board and lodging. The other man worked for McKee until July 28, when a quarrel arose. 'l‘he following day, according to McKee’s own statement, he heard a disturbance, arid, thinking there was a hawk about, be went out to shoot it. He did not get a shot at the hawk, but when he returned to his whare and was endeavouring to extract the cartridge from his gun, the gun exploded, and the other man, England, was shot. It was demonstrated to McKee that this could not have taken place, and McKee then made a new statement, in which he said that another altercation took place, during which England seized the gun. In the struggle that ensued for possession of it the gun exploded and England was shot. The case was peculiar in the respect that it depended upon the contradictory statements of accused. His Honour felt bound to say that the ‘circumstances were such as did not warrant placing a man on bis trial. Whether the grand jury accepted the first statement or the second, there wjas no evidence that accused had criminal intent. There was no evidence, apart from accused's own statement, that lie was responsible for a criminal act. In His Honour’s opinion there was no evidence against McKee, except the statements of the man himself, both of which exonerated him. His Honour suggested, therefore, that if the grand jury found that the facts were as lie had stated, it should throw out the bill. If the grand jury found a true bill he would have to tell the common jury that there was no case on which accused could be convicted, and if he were discharged in this way he could not be brought up for trial again; whereas if the grand jury threw out the bill he woul dbe brought up for trial again. The grand jury threw out the bill.