NOT GUILTY

Hokitika Guardian, 28 July 1932, Page 5

NOT GUILTY

murder charge ACQUITTAL OF WHALLEY. . ...v $§ (Per Press Asso^dtion — Copyright.) . i 1 • '... . . . ‘ • j; A' " ;ATIMAR-IV July 21. v , The Crown Piosecutor, —in his address,' said the jury had to begin with the assumption of' accused’s innocence, and if they heard anything previously, they should put it out’ of their mind, and consider the evidence submitted. The oiily man in tjie room at the time of the tragedy' was the accused. Counsel for- the diefenc-e. had contended the deceased could have held the rifle out and : set the trigger on a nail, tut thfere was no . nail or <; protuberance in the room. He contended it was unlikely • and: impossible, that Wcgaii shot him-, self. Counsel analysed the evidence at length.’ > ■ ' ~ (Counsel for the defence reviewed. the case submitted by the Grown, apd said the evidence 1 was purely circumstantial. He said the jury had to obliterate everything they heard or read outside the. Court. There had been some peculiar features alxmt the case—particularly; extraordinary he calidd it—and that Was. the conduct of the, Coroner who hi Id ’ the inquiry, and; the Magistrate who ' committed the Accused for trial, Those two' .jwen made statements from the ben; h which "Gere decidedly prejudicinJ Vto the ( oe» -eused. What they said they said in public, and it had beau 1 published, That whs highly improper and he' thought the Crown Low Office held the same view, for a,change of venue liad been offend. They appreciated the offer, but decided to plate the fate of the accused in the lnpds of a jury ip Tiniaru. , t’-A AM. ‘ -

In the course of a summing up -the Chief Justice said, there wars one matter he was constrained;to refer to, and that was the • matter which counsel referred to in hiss addiess.

• When charging the grand jury the .previous day, he himself, knowing something of the kind .had happened, ventured to deal with it in a 'guarded and general way, without making particular reference tb .the case. Coujv'el for. the accused bad; referred to the matter, and certainly . not improperly, and he felt it encumbent upon him to say a word or two to clear the matter 1 up, Euery person. accusetd of crime'in a British ornttmurnty was entitled to a fair .trial and had a right to go before a trial jury unprejudiced- and unembarrjisssd; by .prior comment It yeas the duty of a Coroner to ascertain/rfclie cause of dljath/ .* iSo far -as a.Magistra|e ~was he wus.i sitting minisy tonally merely y s a recorder of evidence before { him, excepting to the extent that h!e might > have to decide provisionally, the admissibility of dyi* dencie. If, hs he gathered from tip* statement hy r counsel, anything, had b’len done in this ease contrary to what had been said, all lie could say was that it was to bif deplqred. It Iwid •never happened iii his experience in. New Zealand before,* and he hoped it would never happen-again, 'After retirement 1 of over three hours, the jury l returned a verdict of not guilty.- „ f . .

itie pronouncement was received with apolAuse at bhie back of the Court. 1 .The Judge ordered thle police! to bring, forward anyone ®:en applauding, but the policte were not able to do iso. The Judge said he-desired to malt© a certain observation. Cb-upsel,. for the defence had drawn hjs attention to the factthat when he was commenting during the afternoon on. the comment of the Coroner 'and the committing Magistrate, his did not have, tile accurate finding of the Coroner. He had the finding as it appeared in a local paper which had omitted two c<r three words, which very gneatly qualified the comment that should be made so far as tile Coror.lsr was concerned. The position of a Coroner was different to that of a Magistrate, and so for as the Coroner was concerned, it had been better if onie paragraph of his finding had not appealed. ,