TIMARU MURDER TRIAL

Hokitika Guardian, 14 February 1921, Page 1

TIMARU MURDER TRIAL

■ MATTHEWS SENTENCED TO DEATH. [hy THMSGKAPU—PEK PRESS ASSOCIATION] CHRISTCHURCH, Feb. 12. Ih c trial of Reginald Matthews for the murder of Clarence Edward Waghalf, at Timaru on October 27th. !• was concluded at the Supreme Court before Mr Justice Herdman. A verdict of “Guilty” was returned and prisoner was sentenced to death. Addressing the jury, Mr A. T. Donnelly, Crown Prosecutor recapitulated the main points on which the Crown ease rested. By raising the defence of insanity, accused's counsel had admitted that Matthews fired the fatal., shot, though by reason of a mental disease it was claimed tliat he must be held free from the responsibility for his orin) e and from the punishment that normally would accompany it. There were many grades of mental disease, but the-law, in Section 43 of the Crimes Act, set a definite and distanct standard of insanity. “The crime committed by Matthews.” said Air Donnelly, “was an ordinary offence, committed from ordinary motives and by an ordinary individual. The only difference was that accused was reckless and criminal. beyond the average. He. was in imminent peril of recapture by the police, who would at once send him back to gaol. As soon as he saw that, his capture was likely he drew his pistol and shot Wagstaff dead. The only difference between him and an ordinary criminal was that he was prepared to shoot and kill.”

Tfe would submit, said counsel that there was no need to consider the state of accused’s mind from an alienist’s point of view. He had asked Dr Crosbie if he could find any net of accused at the time of the murder that was other than, that, of a sane though desperate man. The doctor admitted Hint he could not. The onus of proof was on the defence, and if the evidence I ailed to show insanity the defence must fail. TTo submitted that the whole case tor insanity had Withered and faded. The case was extraordinary only in the '•rimiaalily of nedused. If accused’s Ue bad not been one of a series of conflicts with the police and his floatings of the law, if his record had been a clean one, the defence he suggested, would not have put forward a plea of insanity. The plain truth of the matter was that Matthews was merely in the I osition ol an outlaw. This was shown r b.v the fact that wherever ho was found in '|uiet and peaceful cities in New Zealand, Matthews was prowling about armed like a soldier. Everybody was bis enemy. everybody’s hand was against him and lie was prepared to commit murder to avoid capture. It was submitted that Matthews had committed the murder of Wagstaff at Timaru.

His Honour, in summing up, quoted rhe legal definition of insanity. Applied to the present ease it must be interpreted as meaning that accused did not understand that he was shooting and killing, an*! that his insanity prevented him from knowing that what he was doing was wrong. -‘Does the evidence satisfy you that he did not know that he was .shooting a man and that it was wrong,” said His Honour. “If it does, you will acquit him on the ground of insanity. If on the ether hand you are •convinced that li 0 knew that shooting was wrong, that if lie shot lie, was likely to kill, and that in shqpting he was doing wrong, then the defence of insanity goes, and if you are convinced that he was there you will convict him.” His Honour, after summarising the medical evidence, asked (I) “Is there sufficient evidence called by the Crown, to prove that Wagstaff was killed by accused at Timaru on October ‘27th.” (21 “Has accused by his evidence, fulfilled the onus cast upon him, of establishing to your satisfaction that if he killed Wagstaff at Timaru on October 27th., he was sufficiently insane to he within the meaning of the code?” If von are satisfied after considering the evidence, that prisoner did commit an act of murder on October 27th., but that he did not know the nature and quality of flic act he was committing

then it is your duty under those circumstances to find that prisoner was insane at the time of the committal of the offence, and to acquit him on the grounds of insanity. If, after weighing the evidence, you take the view that insanity lias not been proved and that Matthews understood the nature and quality of the act he was committing, your plain duty is to convict him. If you have anv doubt about the matter, then it is your duty to acquit him.” The jury retired at. 11.37 and relumed an hour later with the verdict ‘•Guilty”; and further that it had found him to he sane at the time of the commission of the crime. When the usual question was put by the Registrar, Matthews who was ' 1 oiiriug under deep stress, bit hard into his lips. For a moment it appoared as if ho were about to speak but no

words came. His Honour placed the black cap on his head and passed the sentence ol death. The jury thanked the Court for the courtesy 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.