ACQUITTAL ON CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER AT WELLINGTON

Grey River Argus, 12 November 1948, Page 4

ACQUITTAL ON CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER AT WELLINGTON

At Suggestion of Chief Justice P.A. WELLINGTON, Nov. 11 Bertrand Alexander, aged 25, a painter, was acquitted on the charge ot manslaughter by a jury at the close or the case tor the crown, as when the Crown Prosecutor (Air W. H. Cunningham) had concluded his case, the cmex justice, Sir Humphrey O’Leary asked him if he thougnt n would oe safe to ask the jury to convict on the evidence which tne Crown had placed before it. I here had been some evidence of a blow, said His Honour, but not of one in tne vital locality which had been the cause ot death. Minogue had been in a light before the one witn Alexander, according to the evidence presented. The evidence had given a clear prooi or assault, but this was a minor matter if it was not the assault which caused death. . “I think it unsafe to continue, and I suggest that the jury might withdraw to consider the evidence,” said His Honour. When the jury returned after fifteen minutes, the foreman said that they could find no evidence of manslaughter. His Honour said that that was quite a proper verdict, as the charge had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mr R. Hardie Boys appeared for Alexander. Evidence was given by Dr John Mercer, pathologist at the Wellington Public Hospital, when the trial resumed. Witness said he had interviewed members of the staff who saw Minogue when he was amditted to hospital. He had been immediately examined.by Dr Juliet Williams, the casualty officer. A chart she had prepared showed that Minogue was then fully conscious and knew what had happened to him. He had had a considerable amount to drink. There was no sign of any haemorrhage or fracture of the skull which required surgical intervention. Dr Williams had specially charted that she was to be told immediately of any change in his condition. A nurse had examined Minogue every 20 minutes and she had never found cause for alarm. By eight o’clock next morning Minogue had made a statement to the police, was fully conscious, and wanted his breakfast. Soon afterwards Sister Jenkins escorted him to ward 25, the transfer being the usual practice. . , ■ Witness added that in ward- 2o Minogue was examined on arrival by Dr D. L. Walton, house surgeon to Dr Bridge. Dr Walton had told witness that Minoue was unconscious on arrival and was breathing stertorously. Minogue had suddenly become unconscious between the casualty ward and ward 25. FRACTURED SKULL Dr Philip Patrick Lynch, pathologist. said in evidence that he had made a post-mortem examination of I ivnnogue. Periods of lucidity and unconsciousness were consistent with a fractured skull. There had been nn external evidence of Minogue’s skull having been fractured. Cross-examined, witness said the chance of a fracture of a thin bone at the exact point where there was a large artery had caused death. A blow on the lower part of the face could not have caused the fracture from which Minogue died. If it was true that the accused struck Minogue only one blow-to the mouth or jaw, that was not what killed Minogue. Other witnesses described how they saw Minogue on the footpath after a blow was struck. Two men, one of whom had struck the blow, helped Minogue to his feet and carried him by the armpits to alongside the Opera House. One witness, about a quarter of an hour later, saw the two men run back, crossing Dixon Street into Eva Street. Minogue’s mouth had been bleeding from the blow on the face. Evidence in Case of Manslaughter is Withheld from Jury P.A. INVERCARGILL, Nov. 11. A situation comparable with that in the murder trial at Wellington arose in the Supreme Court here today in the trial of ‘ Walter Momo Fowler, on a charge of manslaughter. Mr Lester Moller, who appeared for the accused, said he had a submission to make about the admissibility of a statement made by the accused, and he asked that the jury be instructed to retire until the submissions were made. He objected to the inclusion of the statement in the evidence. Mr Justice Kennedy gave a direction that th e jury retire until the submissions were made, and’ the examination of a witness proceeded in the absence <?f the jury. The report of this is withheld from publication until after the jury rises to consider its verdict. In the Wellington case, the submissions of counsel were heard in chambers from which the press was excluded, but this procedure was not followed by Mr Justice Kennedy.