DEATH SENTENCE

Hokitika Guardian, 16 November 1933, Page 5

DEATH SENTENCE

JAMES GUILTY CONCLUSION OF MURDER TRIAL. (Per Press Association—Copyright). WELLINGTON, November 15. On their fourth return to the court,, following on their original retirement j the jury to-night returned a verdict of guilty or murder, with a strong recommendation to mercy, against George .Edward James, engine driver,aged 57, who wa :S charged with murdering Cecilia Smith, widow, in a flat at Oliiro Hoad, on June 3(Joli. Tile Chief Justice pronounced the sentence of death. James collapsed. He was carried moaning from the dock. The Hev. Thomas Matthew Heffernan, said that he had given Janies instruction in Catholic religion. James seemed to be passionately fond of the hoy, and Mrs Smith told him (witness)

that she thought that James would make a good husband to her, and that lie would be a father to her child. Their

marriage had been arranged, but it had been cancelled, because, as he understood, there wa s a law suit pending. Mr Leicester, for accused, in his address to the jury, contended the evidence overwhelmingly showed that the crime that Janies committed, ivas manslaughter.: Taking the Crown’s 'Case at itjq best, it was that James was responsible fur the woman’s dhatb, but the whys and the wherefores had not in any shape or form been proved. He submitted that the crime wa s not one of murder, The Crown had established nothing more than that Mrs Smith died of the result of a knife wound inflicted by James. The Crown suggested a motive, but this wa« only a guess, and there wa s no evidence to support it.

“This case is not a difficult- one,” said the Grown Prosecutor, Mr Macas. sey. “it is admitted that the accused inflicted the injuries. The test is whether there was provocation sufficient to deprive any reasonable man of his self control. There was nothing in the circumstances in this case to justify the accused in using a knife on the woman. If it be true that Janie® lost his head, would he not have stabbed Mrs Smith in various parts of the body, instead of directing all. of his blows on the throat?” James, said Mr Macassey, continued that he did not remember what happened afterwards, but" all of hi s actions were.surely those of a man acting d e lii> erate iy- Tney wei e notthose of a dazed man. ,

The Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), sumpiing up, said that the evidence was consistent with the theory of the Crown that the prisoner had de-, cided to do away with the woman and the boy, and to commit suicide him- 1 self. If the prisoner’s intention was as suggested by the Crown, the fact; that he made an attempt t<> do away ■ with himself would make the killing; of the woman'none less than murder..

“Mr Leicester has said,” His Hopor went on, "that if you accept the accused’s igtory at full face value, then you must find a verdict of manslaughter, but that statement is by no mean s necessarily sound or correct. Even if you accept the accused’s evidence as true, you .still have to consider the question of provocation, and to decide whether it was sufficient to justify a reduction of the charge from one of murder to one of manslaughter.’’ Jury’s Inability to Agree. His Honor concluded his summing up shortly after 4.30 p.m., and the jury retired at 4.33. Th e y returned at 5.45, as the jurymen required an answer to the question of whether the defendant’s counsel had admitted that the accused killed the woman, h The' Chief Justice said that it would have been idle for counsel to have said that the woman had not been killed by the accused. At 8.30 p.m. and 9.30 p.m., the jury stated that they were unable to agree, but the Chief Justice asked them to consider the matter further. At 10.23 p.m. they returned with their verdict. “1 feel bound to say,” His Honor said, “that I do not see how any other verdict could have been arrived at.” He then discharged the members of the jury from further attendance, and lie exempted them for a period ot* three years.