JURY ACQUITS SOLDIER

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 191, 11 May 1944, Page 4

JURY ACQUITS SOLDIER

Auckland Murder Trial DEATH OF AMERICAN SERVICEMAN (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) AUCKLAND, May 10. A verdict of not guilty on a charge against a New Zealand soldier, Thomas Rex Beagle, aged 10, of having murdered an American serviceman on March 3 was returned by a jury in the Supreme Court. The trial commenced on Monday morning, and evidence was given by -1 witnesses for the Crown. It w,as alleged accused shot the American with a rifle in a sentry-box at the Papakura Military Camp. The case was heard before Mr. Justice Fair. Mr. Meredith and Mr. Williams appeared for the Crown and Mr. Tompkins and Mr. Wallace for the defence. „ At the conclusion of the Crown case, Mr. Tompkins said he did not propose to call evidence for 'the defence. In his address to the jury, Mr. Meredith said that the only legal defence for accused was justification and a plea ot such provocation as would cause accused to act in the heat of passion and without self-control. An insulting suggestion bad been made in the afternoon, and in the light of a. boyhood incident recalled during the case one would have expected accused to have thoroughly assaulted the American, or to have told him off and left him. Instead, he argued.and nagged, and eventually they dined together and went together in a friendly way to the Papakura camp. Slackness of the guard there was quite irrelevant to the case, as also was the question of whether or not Vallely, the corporal of the guard, was prejudiced against accused. Counsel stressed that accused had said to Vallely: “I’m going shoot this Yank,, and that a few minutes later the American was shot. The story of the boyhood incident was mentioned only when accused, was faced with the grave responsibility of the American’s death. How accused had reacted to the first suggestion had to be remembered, also that the second suggestion of an insulting nature came to accused after he had had a meal and had'had some hours to recover from the effects ofdrink. Therefore, coun sel submitted that the evidence supported the charge of murder. If the jury felt that accused had been so horrified by the improper suggestion as to lose his seltcontrol completely then the charge might be reduced to manslaughter. Defending Counsel’s Address. Addressing the jusy, Mr. Tompkins said- it was not disputed that the Aineri-. can’s death was caused by a shot, from accused’s rifle, but that did not mean he was guilty of murder. Even if it was proved the shot was fired by accused, that did not prove murder. The. Crown had to prove that the shooting amounted to murder, that it was an unlawful shooting and. not justified, that it was done intentionally, and that it was not a shooting provoked by deceased s action. An act which the American suggested to accused was regarded as a serious offence in New Zealand, and it was held that the suggestion could be regarded as an attempt. It appeared from the medical evidence that accused had blindly shot from the hip without deliberately aiming. “I put it to you that he shot in the belief that he was protecting himself at the time,” said counsel. He asked the jury to consider if it was any wonder that accused “saw red” when the suggestion was repeated at the sen-try-box, and acted in the heat of passion and lost his self-control. Was his condition. hysterical and upset as described by Dr. Ilercus, consistent with deliberate shooting? Counsel contended that the evidence showed the act was completely unpremeditated and done under provocation. Summing-up. Summing up, his Honour said the jury had to be satisfied by the evidence that accused had deliberately intended to take life or intended to do some act that was unlawful, and did it. If either' of these conditions was satisfied the jury was bound to find a verdict of murder. If anyone intentionally killed another, that was the offence of either murder or manslaughter unless the perpetrator committed the act in defence or his own life or that of some other person, or if he apprehended that grievous bodily harm that could, only be avoided by an action leading to the depth of another. No matter how contemptible a man’s action might appear, it was not for any individual to decide that it merited the infliction of death. Killing could only be reduced from murder to manslaughter if the accused person had received provocation of such a nature as to deprive an ordinary person of his self-control, or where he acted before his passion had time to cool. The evidence of reports made by accused to members of the guard after the shooting did not seem to indicate that the American had intended to do him bodily harm; it seemed there was evidence from which the jury might conclude that a shameful suggestion had been again made to accused at the sentrybox. The jury might rightly consider that was an insult of a gross nature. His Honour said Dr. Hercus in evidence had stated that accused might be under some fear complex. “I doubt whether that is relevant," he added. He suggested that this evidence should be considered with great caution and care, as it might be thought that it had overweighted the factor of a fear complex. The jury would have to consider the effect of boyhood experience on a youth of 19 and might think that- to describe it as a fear complex was not in accordance with that effect. Such a person might be touchy and resentful. When the suggestion was repeated to accused at the sentry-box he might be resentful, but they had to consider whether he would lose his selfcontrol and shoot the American. His Honour said the jury would have to take into account with the evidence all that Mr. Meredith and Mr. Tompkins had said. “If you come to the conclusion that accused intentionally killed without lawful excuse of any kind, your duty is to find him guilty of murder.” concluded his Honour. “If you find he killed under provocation, you will find him guilty of manslaughter, and. if you are of the opinion that this act. was done in order to protect himself from grievous bodily barm he is entitled to be acquitted.” After the verdict accused was discharged.