"NOT GUILTY"

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 530, 13 May 1933, Page 5

"NOT GUILTY"

(Press Assn.—

MANUEL TRIAL JURY'S VERDICT FOR 17 YEAR OLD MAORI YOUTH KAITAIA TRAGEDY $

-By Telegraph — Copyright).

Auckland, Friday. The five days trial of the Maori boy, Riwi Manuel on a charge of murdering his employer, Hati Eobson, at Pukepoto, near Kaitaia, on January 8, ended to-night with a verdict of not guilty. i Mr. Trimmer, addressing the jury i earlier said that Robson died of gun | shot wounds could scarcely he denied, but that Manuel fired the shot 'was emphatically contradicted. Mr. Meredith for the Crown, said the boy admitted he intended to injure. Tlie point was whether he knew kwhat he did was likely to cause death, j' whether he was reckless, or whether ' he did it or not. It was a point for •, the jury to consider if he did not l know that death was likely to result. j In that case the charge of murder would be reduced to manslaughter. Mr. Justice Herdman said there was culpable homicide amounting to murder if the offender meant to cause injury likely to result in death, and if he was reckless whether death followed or not. If the person used a gun to cause injury without such recklessness and death resulted, he would be guilty of manslaughter. The conduct of the police throughout the proceedings had been scrupulously fair. They were particularly careful to see the lad made his statements free from influence. There could be no suggestion in the statements the lad made that he was haunted by fear. The foundation of the case was the statement made by the boy in which he said he stood in the doorway of Robson's room and shot him. There were various circumstances that might lead them to consider the boy's statement was indeed a true fact. There was no evidence implicating Thomas, and the suggestion that he had anything to do with the case was founded upon the flimsiest possible evidence — indeed upon no evidence at all. "If you conclude that without intending to kill, accused fired at Robson and wounded him, it is your duty to bring in a verdict of manslaughter," said His Honour. "If you come to the conclusion that the boy's statements were not to be relied upon, then of course, the case for the Crown would fall to the ground, but it is difficult to see how they could be rejected in the circumstances." The jury was absent for four hours and 20 minutes before they j returned with the verdict of not guilty.