OPOTIKI MURDER.

North Otago Times, Volume CVII, Issue 17748, 10 March 1927, Page 5

OPOTIKI MURDER.

Press Associatiqa.)

r i . ! SULLIVAN SENTENCED TO SEVEN YEARS.

(Per

v _ GISBORNE, Marcn V. The trial of John Sullivan, charged with murdering Jeremiah WilIiamson was concluded in the Supreme Court this morning. Addressing the jury, Mr^ Hodgson, for the defence, paid a tribute to the fairness of the prosecution. He said that qnless the jury was satisfied guilt o'f intention was proved they were^ not entitled to convict, and if convinced that accused was insane at the time he was clearly entitled to acquittal. The medical evidence, he submitted, all pointed in this direction, and showed that accused was unconscious of his actions and incapable of telling right from wrong. There was an entire absence of motive, the murdered man being accused's best and only friend. Accused's bfehaviour was consistent with insanity. He had made no effort to conceal the crime or his connection therewith. He asked the jury to find accused insane at the time of the commission of the offenee. , i The crown prosecutor said that in the interests of the public pleas of insanity, which were increasing greatly, required watching carefully. Accused. must be presumed sane unless the defence clearly established otherwise. It would be a dangerous policy to conclude tbat a prisoner was not responsible because of mental iustability in his family. The defence was that the prisoner hy drinking produced acondition tantamount to insanity but this was -no excuse. If the jury found that he knew what he was doing at the commencement of the assault they must find him guilty of manslaughter, and if cognisant of the whole proceedings guilty of murder. Prisoner's prior and subsequent actions all pointed to a realisation of the actions. If the jury reached this conclusion there was only one possible verdict. Summing up his Honour said that although there was no doubt that deceased was killed by accused, it did not necessarily follow that accused was guilty of murder. Before convicting the jury must be satisfied that there was guilty intent. Drunkenness was no excuse, as a man became drunk at his peril. If accused did not lcnow the nature and quality of his acts he was entitled to acquittal on the ground of insanity, but it was no defence to say that aqcused was fighting drunk. The medical evidence appeared conclusive that he knew what he was doing at the commencement of the attack. If that opinion was accepted by the jury then their verdict would be guilty of manslaughter. If they believed he was unconscious of his acts from beginning to end, then he was entitled to acquittal on the ground of insanity. If guilty of forming an intention to strike deceased, but not killing him, then they would find a verdict of manslaughter. Finally if they were satisfied that he knew what he was doing when he killed Williamson they would find him guilty of murder. • After a retirement of under two hours the jury returned a verdict of guilty of manslaughter against John Sullivan, and prisoner was sentenced to seven years' hard labour. Justice Ostley commented upon the capable defence, and remarked that the protection which the law throws round citizens must be held sacred and a serious crime against life must cai'ry a lengthy sentence.