CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 458, 22 May 1909, Page 3

CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER

CONNELLY FOUND GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER. TEN YEARS’ IMPRISONMENT. Christchurch, May 20, The Westport murder trial was continued to-day. Messrs Hanlon and Stringer addressed the jury, and his Honour’s summing up was favourable to the Crown’s theory that Connelly was guilty of manslaughter. The following issues were submitted to the jury, which retired at 5.35 p.ra. (1) Is the accused guilty or not guilty ? If “ Yes,” (2) is he guilty ot murder, or (3) is he guilty of manslaughter ? (4) It you find him guilty of either, theu do you find it is proved that he was assisted, as alleged iu His original written statement ? The jury returned at 8.53 p.m. with the following replies : —To No, 1, “ guilty.” To No. 2, “ not guilty of murder.” To No. 3, “guilty of manslaughter”; and to No. 4, “no.” The jury added that they desired to express a very strong recommendation to mercy. Prisoner stated that he was 19 years of age, and had nothing to say why sentence should not be passed on him. His Honour said, addressing Connelly, after a very careful trial iu respect to which he (Connelly) bad received every assistance that he could expect from counsel, he had been found guilty of manslaughter. The jury had also found that he had failed to establish the defence he had set up that Hallineu and Anderson had been with him. Considering the history of the case, his Honour thought he ought to express his entire concurrence with the jury ou all these points. It had been impossible to listen to the evidence iu the case without coming to the conclusion that the verdict of the Hokitika jury was justified, and it was clear that the true account of the transaction was that disclosed in the confession which the prisoner had somewhat belatedly made. The jury had taken a favourable view of the prisoner’s action in recommending him to mercy. They must be assumed to have found that prisoner acted possibly under the influence of liquor, and certainly without any realisation of the consequence of his brutality. In view of that and the prisoner’s age, his Honour thought he ought to give effect to that recommendation. Nevertheless prisoner’s offence had been a very serious one indeed. Young as he was, he had already had a career of crime. He (his Honour) must inflict a substantial sentence, a sentence which to some extent would go beyond the one he was already serving. His Honour sentenced prisoner to ten years’ imprisonment, sentence to be concurrent with the sentence imposed on him for perjury. His Honour thanked the jury tor the obvious care and attention they had brought to this very important case. It would probably be a satisfaction to them to feel that their verdict confirmed the ptevious verdict, and placed beyond all reasonable doubt the true nature of the transaction, and finally removed any stigma attaching to Hallinen and Andersen. Their verdict attached no stigma to the jury which dealt with the case iu Nelson.