ALLEGED ATTEMPTED MURDER

Otago Witness, Issue 4031, 16 June 1931, Page 50

ALLEGED ATTEMPTED MURDER

GIRL SERIOUSLY INJURED TRIAL OF HUBERT NUNN. HASTINGS, June 11. Hubert Frederick Nunn stood his trial at the Napier Supreme Court this morning on a charge of attempting to murder Mavis Steele Smith at Hastings on April 7, 1931. A second count was added to the indictment, “That with intent to do grevious bodily harm to Mavis Steele Smith he did discharge at the said Mavis Steele Smith a gun loaded with destructive material.” The accused pleaded nor guilty. The courthouse was crowded. The case for the prosecution was conducted by Mr H. B. Lusk, and Mr E. J. VV. Hallett appeared for the accused. Evidence, for the prosecution was led on the lines of that given in the lower court.

The accused then went into the box. He said that as the result of shell shock at the war he was in an English hospital for about a. year. On returning to New Zealand he. contracted influenza, pneumonia, and other maladies. He was ill for several years, and still suffered from headaches. He met Miss Smith in November, 1929, and immediately became infatuated, and she returned his affection. The accused said he went to Pakowhai road after midnight as he particularly wanted to see who brought Mavis home. He had no intention of shooting Mavis when he took the gun out of the car. He went inside the gate and waited for Mavis. She alighted from the car and started to run toward the house, and the accused called her. She stopped and came towards the accused who told her he did not think she would go out to parties after promising not to. The accused said he reminded her he had spent about £250 on her. The pair walked to the gate, and the accused asked her to come to the car and if she would come to him as soon as possible. o The girl replied that she was not going out with him any more. Beyond that the accused said he had no recollection of what occurred until he got home, when he seemed to recall it.

SEVEN YEARS’ REFORMATIVE DETENTION. NAPIER, June 12. Sentencing Hubert Frederick Nunn to seven years’ reformative detention for the attempted murder of Mavis Steele Smith at Hastings on April 7, of which he was found guilty in the Supreme Court this afternoon, the Chief Justice (Mr Justice Myers) said he did not regard the accused as of stable men tality, but he was very far from being insane as laid down by the legal definition. At the same time, his Honor said, human life must be protected and offences of this type could not be allowed to be committed. His Honor added that he did not intend to inflict a term of imprisonment with hard labour, but would sentence the accused to a long period of reformative detention, and during that time he would be under observation. Mr Hallett said that the evidence he had proposed to call would indicate that Nunn was suffering from moral insanity. and not intellectual insanity. His Honor: I fear I do not see the difference. Mr Hallett continued his examination of the accused and asked: “ When did you first realise you had shot Mavis? ” The accused: When I reached home. Mr Lusk: Did you say to Miss Smith that if you could not have her no one else would?—Yes., What did you mean by that?—l did not mean to harm her. Did you intend to kill her or to kill any man who separated you?—No, I did not mean it that way. His Honor: But what did you mean? —Well, I loved Mavis with all my heart and it hurt me to know any other man should have her if I didn’t. I never intended to harm her. His Honor: All right, then. Mr Lusk: You remember all the details of the conversation but do not remember the actual shooting ? —That is so. Why did you take the gun from the car?—l don’t know. But why did you?—l intended to frighten her.

H\s Honor: But how frighten her? Witness: Not Miss Smith, sir. His Honor: Then whom did you intend to frighten?—l thought she was coming home with another man. Mr Lusk: What were you going to do to him ?—I don’t know. His Honor: You realised when yon got home you had shot the girl?—Yes. Did you not hear her call out “ Dad, dad”? —I don’t remember, sir. You did not take long to get aw-ay?— No, it would seem I did not take long. When did you write the letter?—About half an hour after I got home. When did you put it in the upholstery of the settee?—When the police arrived. Did you put it there to conceal it from them ? —Yes, they had told me Mavis was not dead. Then the police questioned you?—Yes. And you said, “ I did not shoot her. I may have been instrumental in doing so”?—I must have said so. I was dazed at the time. Did you say you did not shoot Miss Smith and you could say who did but would not do so just then?—Yes. That is also what you told the doctor some time later?—Yes. This is the first time you have admitted shooting the girl?—That is so. The girl says you bluntly asked her to marry you that night, and when she said “No ” you said “ Then I’ll shoot you”?—I don’t remember saying that to her. Why did you have the gun?—Not to shoot Mavis, sir. But why have the gun?—At the very worst to frighten somebody. Who?—Not Mavis. I thought she had come home with another man. Did you intend to shoot him?—No, just to frighten him, perhaps. Addressing the jury Mr Hallett said the act was not premeditated. Up till midnight the accused had no intention of committing any wrong. Nunn was infatuated with the girl and for a considerable period the affection was mutual. Miss Smith was away from Hastings for some time, and the accused heard that she had returned. He went purely to see the girl he was in love with and whom he had not seen for some months. There was nothing sinister about that. He suspected that Miss Smith was going out with another man. It was quite probable that he intended to frighten, not Miss Smith, but the other man. That probably was why he took the gun from the car. He was madly in love with her and it was highly improbable • that he would deliberately kill her. Counsel entreated the jury to believe Nunn’s story, in which he said he had no intention of injuring Miss Smith and did not recollect what had happened until afterwards. Summing up, his Honor outlined the simple illustration of a man who had a debt owing to him and after making representations for payment threatened to shoot the debtor if it was not paid. When the debtor later refused to make payment he was shot at. Subsequently the creditor said he shot his debtor but did not mean to do it. His Honor contended that the present case was practically identical with his illustration. If a defence of that kind was to be accepted his Honor remarked that he was thankful the responsibility was that of a jury and not his. There was no doubt the accused . was infatuated with the girl and had made a threat which he had carried into effect. It was true there was nothing sinister in having a gun in the car so long as he had left it there. Nuiiri evidently thought the girl was dead and had cleared out. Shortly afterwards he had written a letter in which he stated he had always vowed no other man would have the girl. When questioned by the police there was time for him to have said he did not intend to shoot the girl and not merely to have said he ’ did not do it but knew who did. The jury returned a verdict of guilty after 40 minutes’ retirement.

THE TE AWAMUTU OUTRAGE

FRANK J. KERR ON TRIAL. Hamilton, June 11. Frank' James Kerr, aged 40, stood his trial to-day in the Supreme Court in Hamilton' on a charge of attempting to murder Gertrude Edith West, aged 18, at Te AXvamutu, on January 24. Mr H. T. Gillies, who appeared for the Crown, said that prisoner had been paying attentions to Miss West. These were

neither acceptable to the girl nor to the parents. Kerr kept pestering the girl, and was finally ordered to remain away from the house. A few nights before the shooting Kerr attempted again to 'see the girl. The girl’s parents were poor and the mother had to go out to do cleaning work. On the morning* of January 24 Miss West was returning from office cleaning when Kerr, who, it would be shown, had borrowed a shot gun, followed her up in a motor car. He spoke to her and she resented his approach, passing on home. Later Kerr called at her parents’ house and there, in the garden, shot the girl, inflicting a very severe wrnund which necessitated the girl remaining in hospital for a lengthy period, during which time her life was despaired of. Prisoner immediately after the shooting said he had fired the gun accidentally. The whole question for the jury to decide was whether Kerr went to the house with the deliberate intention of shooting the girl or whether the gun went off "accidentally. Miss West gave evidence on the lines of that given in the Lower Court. The case is proceeding. KERR FOUND GUILTY. AUCKLAND, June 12. Frank James Kerr, aged 40, who stood his trial to-day in the Supreme Court in Hamilton on a charge of attempting to murder Gertrude Edith West, aged 18, at Te Awamutu, on January 24, was found guilty, and sentence was postponed until Monday.