PAGE SENTENCED.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4413, 12 May 1922, Page 3

PAGE SENTENCED.

TWENTY YEARS’ HARD LABOUR. CALLOUS AND BRUTAL CRIM®. THIN PARTITION FROM MURDER. JURY’S MERCIFUL FINDING. Twenty years’ hard labour was the sentence of. his Honor, Mr Justice Stringer, on Arthur. William Page, when the latter, convicted of manslaughter, in connection with the shooting at Pipiroa on February 5 of Gladys McGregor Hutchinson, appeared before him at the Supreme Court yesterday. THE EVIDENCE-CONCLUDES. The nature of the wounds of the two people was certified to by. Dr. Ritchie, who was summoned from the Thames. He had.dressed Page, and in leaning over him did not detect any signs of ‘liquor. Page been treated at the hospital about a year previously, and he came to the institution in a drunken condition. Page’s wound was sufficient to sober him. Some more details of the bottle of whisky were supplied by James Twohill. publican, who sold by Joseph Antoniovitch, launch driver, who delivered it to Page, by George Melville, who had three drinks on the Pipiroa wharf, by Henry C. Brabant, who had a couple 'of thimblefulls, and William H. Whittingham, who swore that at least seven . people had participated in the luxury. Constables Devereaux and Riley recounted their participation in events prior and subsequent to the tragedy as outlined in the Crown Prosecutor's address. Sergeant McDonnell described the state and around the whare when he arrived after tragedy. Inside the building were a number of packages and hampers of clothes neatly tied up and ready -for removal. • The " whole appearance of the scene indicated that the occupants were leaving. The last witness for the Crown was Constable Bishop, who was in charge of the accused at the Thames Hospital. AN ABSENT . WITNESS. On Mr Meredith Indicating that the case for- the Crown was completed:, Mr Garland questioned whether he did not intend to call a Mr Ryder, a' Thames reporter, who had ridden in the car with the accused to the hospital. When the Crown Prosecutor replied in the negative and counsel for the defence made some comment on the action, his Honor intimated that although the defence should have subpoened any persop. required as a winess, his Honor would command that Ryder be summoned to give evidence. That was, of course, if counsel thought he might be of any assistance to his case. Mr Garland : I don’t know whether it is that important. His Honor: Any person who can throw any light on the affair should be called. Mr Garland : I should certainly like Mr Ryder called. The problem was solved, however, by the fact that no trace, of the witness required could be found in the precincts of the court, and counsel-theretorc-proceeded with their addresses. No evidence was called for tne de fence. COUNSEL ADDRESSES JURY. Mr Meredith,-in a short review of the evidence, said that the facts proved were abundantly, clear. The point ./the jury had to decide was (whether Page knew what he was doing when he shot the unfortunate woman. He himself discountenanced the suggestion that he did not. It was perfectly clear that accused had consumed little of the bottle of whisky, and it was imposs ible to come to any other conclusion than that he was sober at the time he used the gun, even when allowing for the sobering effect oil the wound he inflicted on himself. Page could not .have had enough drink to render him insensible of the crime he was committing. The evidence of Mr Wallace disposed of the likelihood of it being an accident, and accused’s own confession went to support the contention that he deliberately killed the woman. The only inference that could be drawn from Page coming out of the whare with the gun in his hand fully loaded was that he had premeditated the crime. “There is not and has not been at any part of the trial any. denial of. the shooting, but that is the extent of the confession;,’' said Mr Garland, in the course of his address on the prisoner’s" behalf. He briefly discussed the .difference between murder and manslaughter, emphasising that m , murder intention was a necessary ingredient. He asked what could have been the motive for the crime ? The Crown had alleged two; firstly, jealousy because the woman was returning to her husband, and,. secondly, anger; created by the fact that she would not go. to the Court to give evidence on his behalf; He submitted • that she was not returning to her husbafidL There was ample evidence that she had refused, and this was further supported by the fact that the belongings of the two persons packed in the whare were intermingled, clearly indicating that they were going away together. Page had never alleged jealousy as the motive, and z there was, added counsel, nothing to support this as the motive. Dealing with the. second alleged motive he criticised the evidence of the two constables concerning their conversar tion with Page on the liquor case as inconsistent. All the accused’s other statements when probed bad proved correct; why, therefore, should thev doubt that he took the gun for any other purpose than to shoot game ? Counsel said that it was an impulsive act —the act of a man for the time being deprived of his reason. There was no doubt that the man hal had liquor, and the details of the tragedy bore out the contention that ' he was drunk. There was no quarrel. It was probable that he shot the woman in a moment of insanity when he was not responsible for his act, and under such conditions that the jury was competent to bring in a verdict of manslaughter.

JUDGE’S SUMMING UP.

His Honor, in summing up, said the case was much simpler than many of, a capital nature. It was unquestionable, as the defence had admitted, that accused shot the woman. The only question to decide was whether it was culpable homicide; and;, if so. was it such as to justify a verdict of murder or'manslaughter ? His: Honor had drawn the conclusion from the 'i defence put forward that, the jury were asked to return a verdict pt not guilty of murder on the ground of temporary insanity. He was bound to tell them, however, there had not been any evidence to substantiate this. There were salient features that seemed to dispose of the contention that it was an accident. "Why was the gun loaded at all, and why had not the accused gone and got assistance if it was an accident ? Instead, after shooting the woman he had shot himself; then he had deliberately reloaded the weapon. It was impossible to probe into the recesses of the human heartv and it was impossible to say what his motive for shooting Mrs Hutchinson was. "We do not know what took place in the whare before the shooting. We dp not know because the one person who could speak is dead.” If the Jury was satisfied that the shooting was deliberate and wilful it would return a verdict of murde-. There was the view that the accused was so far under the influence of drink that he was incapable of controlling himself, and having the gun loaded had used it in this way, and then turned it, on himself. That was a view the jury was quite justified in taking, and therefore return a verdict of manslaughter. The issue the jury had to determine was, was the accused guilty of murder or manslaughter, unless they thought of course that it was definitely a case of insanity. A'ter a retirement of a little over three hours the jury returned their verdict. Mr Garland then asked his Honor to postpone sentence until the morning, as he had not had an opportunity of consulting the accused and learning if there was anything that might mitigate the sentence. His Honor concurred, and the prisoner, who had been keenly observant of the whole proceedings, was taken away.. A FINAL APPEAL. A final appeal for the prisoner was made by Mr Garland, after studying overnight the criminal record of accused. He agreed to his Honor's remarks that nearly all the offences could be attributed to liquor. He asked that the fjact that Page had permanently crippled himself be taken into consideration in imposing a moderate sentence. • ' THE SENTENCE. "In convicting you of the manslaughter rather than of the capital charge of murder,” said his Honor, “the jury adopted the most merciful' view of the case which was reasonably open to them. They evidently thought that, having regard to the illicit relationship which existed between you apd the unfortunate woman whose life you- destroyed; it was probable or pt least possible that sojiie quarrel had taken place between you and her, and that you, inflamed with drink and having a gun in your hands, in sudden passion and without premeditation, fired the-fatal shit. The facts, as proved before them, would have justified the jury in finding you guilty of murder, but, fn view of all the circumstances,, it was propably natural and not unreasonable that they should have adopted the more merciful - course which it was within their province to dp. I cannot, however, regard the crime, of which you have been convicted as other than of a most callous and brutal character, divided only by a very thin partition from that of actual murder. Holding this opinion and considering your past record, I do not. think I should be doing my duty if I passed upon you a less sentence than I now do, namely, that you be imprisoned with hard labour fo r 20 years.” I