THE WESTPORT MURDER CASE

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9450, 21 May 1909, Page 5

THE WESTPORT MURDER CASE

Press Association, Christchurch, May 20, The Westport murder trial was continued to-day. Messrs Hauloa and Stringer addressed the jury, and His Honor gummed up favourably to the Crown’s theory that Connelly was guilty of manslaughter. The following issues were submitted to the jury, which retired at 5.33 p.m. (1) Is the accused guilty or not guilty? If yes (3) is ho guilty of murder, or (3) is he guilty of manslaughter? (4) If you find him guilty of either, then do you find it is proved that he was assisted, as alleged in his original written statement? The jury returned at 8.53 p.m. with the following replies To No. 1, guilty; to No. 3, 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. The prisoner stated he was 19 years of age and had nothing to say why shnold not be passed on him. His Honor said, addressing Connelly, after a very careful trial in respect to which he (Connelly) had received every assistance that he could expect from counsel, he had been found guilty of manslaughter. The jury also found that he had failed to establish the defence he had get up: that Halinen and Andersen had been with him. Considering the history of the case, his Honor thought he ought to express his entire concurrence with the jury on all these points. It had been impossible to listen to the evidence in the case without coming to the conclusion that the verdict of the Hokitika jury was justified and it was clear that the true account iot the transaction was that disclosed in the confession which the prisoner had somewhat belatedly made. The jury had taken a favourable view o£ the prisoner’s action in recommending him to mercy. They must be assumed to have found that the prisoner acted possibly under the influence and certainly without any realisation of the consequence of his brutality. In view of that and owing to prisoner’s age His Honor thought he ought to give it effect. Nevertheless the prisoner’s offence had been a very serious one. Indeed, young as he was, he had already had a career of crime. He (His Honor) must inflict a substantial sentence, which, to t some extent, wonld go beyond the one he was already serving. His Honor sentenced prisoner to ten years’ imprisonment, tiie sentence to be concurrent with the sentence imposed on him for perjury. His Honor thanked tbe jury for the obvious care and attention they had brought to this very important case. Id would probably be a satisfaction to them to feel that their verdict conformed with the previous verdict and placed beyond all reasonable doubt the true nature of the transaction and of Anally removing any stigma attaching to Halinen and Andersen. Their verdict attached no stigma to the jury which dealt with the case in Nelson.