WELLINGTON MURDER CASE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 2768, 7 August 1924, Page 3

WELLINGTON MURDER CASE.

BARNES GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER. SENTENCE DEFERRED. Wellington, Last Night. In the murder charge against Barnes at the Supreme Court to-day lho evidence of the bacteriologist in Auckland was read. Tt detailed the finding of human blood on the accused’s coat, towel and apron. Airs Wlhall, wife of the victim, in evidence said she first met Barnes in February 1923, when she was living apart from her husband and c"i ning her own living.

Mrs Whall said that she went to Palmerston N. with Barnes and there met Whall, who threatened that if she did not return to him he would throw himself under a train. She went to Auckland with him and 1 here he thrashed her. His Honour asked what this evidence had to do witli the crime alleged. Was it given as the motive of the crime? The Crown Prosecutor: This is an attempt to get the sympathy" of the jury, and to blacken the character of the man who is dead and not here to answer. The evidence was continued on (hose lines counsel for accused stating that lie.was endeavouring to refute the suggestion that Whall was fighting for his wife.

His Honour said it seemed an extraordinary way of doing it. He would not stop the evidence going to lhe jury, but the procedure was most improper. Witness said Wliall had written i o ! James suggesting that he did not want his wife back, but Barnes should pay him (lie amount it had cost him to keep his wife. Barnes received I lie letter and had brought it home.

His Honour: “She apparently means the place where she and Barnes were living. I think it should be suggested to the witness that the use of the word “home” should he nvoided in this connection,” Witness said Whall told her of (lie first fight and stated he had thrashed Barnes. Witness went, down lo see if Barnes was hurt, and Whall went with her, kicked Barnes, and told witness to pack up and leave. Sheiwas then living with Wliall. His Honour said if this was not submitted as a motive for crime it appeared to establish a very good reason for revenge. Air Stevenson then concluded his examination. His Honour pointed out that no evidence of the crime had been given, and the witness appeared to have been called on false pretences. Mr Stevenson sqid he was afraid he had gone off! ids notes, owing to the interruptions. =■ - Ilis Honour: “I am sorry.” This was all the evidence. Mr Stevenson, counsel for accused, maintained that there was no evidence that Barnes used the .kpife on Wliall. He suggested that (|ecease<l rushed at antTstruck Barnes who held the knife 'downwards and that; Whall rushed on the blade!

MirMaeassey, for the Crown, said it was evident Barnes:had taken Mrs Whall"from her Husband. Naturally he resented it. She had gone back to Whall after living with Barnes, hut the latter had again enticed her away. Whall had thrashed Barnes, and the latter had gone to the house secured a knife and went out a second time.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty of manslaughter and prisoner was remanded for sentence.