MURDER CHARGE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3674, 4 August 1927, Page 3

MURDER CHARGE.

TRIAL OF DEVA KALA

JURY DISAGREE,

SECOND HEARING TO-MORROW.

Before Mr. .Justice Reed and a jury of twelve, Deva Kala, a Hindu chef, recently employed at the Commercial Hotel, Pahiatua, appeared in the Palmerston North Supreme Court yesterday to .answer a charge of murder. The charge related to the death of William John Barrett, barman of the Commercial Hotel, whose body was found lying on the door to the kitchen .of the hotel on June 4, deceased’s head being almost completely severed from his body.

The base for the Crown was conducted by the Crown Prosecutor (Mr F. H. Cooke), while Mr F! D. McLiver, of Auckland, appeared for accused.

Throughout the hearing of the case the Court was crowded to overflowing with onlookers, His Honour having on one occasion to .threaten to clear the Court if the public did not refrain from laughing at the remarks of witness and counsel. “This,” said, His Honour, “is not, a show. A man is being tried for his life.”

' How the fatality was discovered was related by Mr. Cooke in his opening address to the jury. He pointed out that Thomas Davison, a kitchenman employed at the Commercial Hotel, was the first to find out what had happened to Barrett. Shortly after *1 p.m. Barrett went to his lunch, which he had in the kitchen. He passed through the scullery into the kitchen, and about ten minutes later Davison heard groans issuing from the kitchen, Davison then went into the kitchen, where he saw Barret lying on the floor. Thinking that he was in a fit, the kitchenman caught him by the shoulder, and it was then that he noticed a terrible gash at the back of his neck, and a pool of blood lying on the floor behind him. As Davison was going into the kitchen Deva Kala passed him in the doorway going out of the kitchen. No other persons had been in the kitchen at the time of the discovery of the tragedy. A doctor arrived in due course, said counsel, and found Barrett with his head nearly severed from his body. Immediately afterwards the police arrived, and a constable asked what the deed had been done with. Accused thereupon volunteered the statement, that the article used was in the sink. Accordingly a search was made in the sink, which was at the time filled with hot soapy water, with * the result that a chopper was found immersed in the water. “There was no blood on the chopper,” said Mr. Cooke. “If there had been any it had all been washed away.” “On the facts that I have mentioned to you,” said, Mr Cooke, “it is obvious that no defence that may be raised can result in the acquittal of accused; it will simply reduce the matter to a 1 question of whether the man was guilty of murder or of manslaughter.” CONVERSATION MAY HAVE BEEN DROWNED.

For the prosecution lengthy evidence was given by various ecployees of the Commercial Hotel,, their stories of how the tragedy occurred, andi of- the subsequent events, being on the lines of Mr. Cooke’s opening address, and the evidence given at the inquest on the death of Barrett. The witnesses were lengthily cross-examined by Mr. McLiver, the main fact elicited being that, owing to the noise of dishes being washed in the scullery and pantry, it might have been possible for Barrett and accused to have conversed in the kitchen without those in the rooms adjacent hearing the conversation. All the witnesses agreed.that ,Deva Kala was apparently on good terms with Barrett, as well as with the other members of the hotel staff. Medical evidence was given by Dr. H. T. Dawson, of Pahiatua, who stated that accused had volunteered the information that he had killed Barrett. Witness considered that the wound in Barrett’s neck showed signs of having been inflicted by one used to the use of such an instrument as the chopper produced in Court.

CONVERSATION BETWEEN DECEASED AND ACCUSED.

The ease Tor the prosecution was concluded by police evidence, Constable Swan relating how accused had stated to him: “I have had' bad luck to-day. I am a married man with two boys in India. I came to New Zealand in 1918, went home to India in 1921, and returned to New Zealand in 1923. I have had bad luck to-d'ay in Pahiatua. The barman came into the kitchen for lunch; said to me: “Are you going away on Monday?” I replied: “Yes I have given notice.” He then called me a “black, woolly b and that he would get me ten years be-, fore I went. I had breadknife in my hand, cut the bread, and —— ” Cross-examined: by Mr. McLiver the constable stated that he did not think the word “coolie” had been used instead of “woolly.” CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. In opening the case for the defence, Mr. McLiver pointed out. to the jury that it was their duty to put out of their minds everything which they had previously heard or read of the case. Claiming that Barrett had been killed as a result of his sudden provocation of accused, Mr. McLiver proceeded to put accused in the wit-

ness-box, his evidence being taken by means of an interpreter. From the box accused related that he was a married man, 36 years of age, having two children and a mother in India. He came to New Zealanl on October, 1918, returning to India after he had worked in Blenheim three years. He rereturned from India, and worked in Blenheim for eleven months, and afterwards went to Danncvirke, and stayed there eighteen months, then going to Stratford. He returned to Dannevirke, working there until January, 3,927. He left Dannevirke on his own desire, and went to the Club Hotel, Pahiatua, afterwards going to the Commercial Hotel, where he worked from March onwards. On May 16 the present licensee of the hotel entered into possession of the hotel, and accused gave notice that he was going to leave the hotel, owing to his desire to work in a large hotel.* He was always friendly with everybody at the hotel, Barrett included. He first met Barrett when he went to work at the Commercial Hotel. He had few conversations with Barrett, the two men saying only good morning to each other. This greeting was exchanged every morning. Accused gave Barrett all his meals, asking jiim what he would have when he entered the kitchen. Up till the day of the tragedy Barrett had never insulted accused, nor had, accused insulted Barrett. On the day in question Barrett had breakfast about 8.45 a.m., when there was no conversation between accused and the barman. Accused had breakfast later on by himself. Barrett came into the kitchen again at about quarter past one, when witness was at a table behind Barrett cutting bread for stuffing. Barrett helped himself to soup, afterwards telling Kala that he would have some jugged hare. BOTH ANGRY. Barrett asked . Kala if he were leaving on Monday, continued accused, and on Kala saying that he was, Barrett said he would get him ten years. Kala asked what for, and Barrett replied, “I’ll fix you, you b — black b — coolie cook.” Barrett was angry, and was speaking slowly. Kala then lost his temper for a moment and said “Shut up,” hitting out with his arm at the same time, the chopper accidentally striking Barret in the neck. Kala did not know that he was going to hit out or that he would hit Barrett with (he chopper. “I lost my temper and didn’t know anything,” he declared from the box. At the time Barrett was very close to him. When he looked round he saw the chopper had cut Barrett’s neck. Kala was very frightened, and could not move for some minutes. Afterwards he put the chopper into the sink and went back to the kitchen. Thomas Davidson entered the kitchen and began to handle Barrett. Kala did not then know Barrett was dead. He did not want to hurt him or to kill him. After changing his clothes he told Mrs Jago, the manageress, he had killed Barrett, and later he told the policeman he knew the meaning of the words used by Barrett, one of which he defined in Court. Cross-examined by Mr Cooke, Kala stated that no one had ever used such language as Barrett’s to him before. He was about two feet from Barrett when the language was used, and had his back to him at the time. After the accident there was blood on the chopper, but he did not wipe it off. He was greatly shocked to see w r hat had happened, and could not move for some time.

Evidence was given by Sidney Andrews, hotelkeeper, of Dannevirke, who said that he had found Kala an excellent cook with a very even temper. He had never heard him use a cross word; and had never seen him, drink while in his employ. Thomas Kirkwood, hotelkeeper, of Stratford, gave similar evidence as to Kala’s character. He was a thorough geptleman, quiet and unassuming, and showing no inclination to violence. After Mr McLiver had addressed the jury at length, Mr Cooke also addressed the jury on behalf of the Crown. In summing up, His Honour traced and commented upon the evidence at length, pointing out that it was a question whether time would have permitted Barrett to have made the remarks ,to Kala as claimed by the defence. THE VERDICT. The jury retired at 6 p.m. to consider its verdict. Four hours later the jury returned, having failed to agree upon their verdict. On the application of the Gown, a new trial has been set down for. Friday morning, the jury which served during the. present trial being discharged from further attendance.