SUPREME COURT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 29, 4 February 1914, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

HAZEL STANLEY’S DEATH.

WARREN CONVICTED.

At the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday, Daniel Warren, alias Monroe, alias Wilson, pleaded not guilty to charges of killing Hazel Stanley by causing such bodily injuries that' she died; that with intent .0 do grievous bodily harm he did actual bodily harm j and also with asault so as to cause actual bodily iiarm.

Mr C. H. Weston prosecuted, and Mr A. H. Johnstone, with Mr Kutherfurcl (Stratford) appeared for the accused.

On the application of Mr Johnstone, all witnesses were ordered out of the Court.

Mr Weston briefly outlined the three charges against the accused. The woman was travelling with accused on September 20 from Hawera to Stratford. They had both been drinking, and drank on the road, and it was alleged that Warren had knocked her about a good deal. It would be shown that the woman died from heart failure, but that these injuries hastened her death. This amounted to manslaughter. Evidence was given similar to that given at the preliminary proceedings at Stratford.

There was no evidence for the defence.

Mr Johnstone, in the course of a lengthy address, outlined the facts of the case, which he asked the jui' to consider without sentiment. He dealt lirst with the charge of manslaughter, which he contended uas supported by but flimsy evidence. In die firkt place, he admitted that accused did injure the woman, but nothing more. Traversing the facts, be pointed out that the woman had first irritated the man, who had hitherto been civil to her. He pointed out some discrepancies between the evidence of the driver and that of the Maoris. The matter had, he said, been exaggerated by them, and coloiod by after events. Retelling to the medical evidence, he stated that the only evidence the jury had as to the cause of death was that of the doctor, who said she had died from alcoholic poisoning, merely expressing the Opinion that the brhises had accelerated the death of the woman. She had already been suffering from a dangerous disease. There was, he further said, no evidence of intent to do grievous bodily harm. His Honor, in summing up the evidence, said that the admission ol the third count practically decided the whole case. There was sufficient doubt as to whether the bruises played any. part in the woman’s death. That could be said without disrespect to the medical evidence. There was, further, a doubt as to whether there had been any intent to commit grievous bodily harm. The case would be met with by a verdict of guilty on the charge of committing grievous bodily harm. After a short retirement the jury returned with a verdict of guilty on the third count only. The prisoner had nothing to say. 1 His Honor remarked that accused had 17 previous convictions, some for offences which showed him a most mischievous criminal. Prisoner was a plague to the community, and the facts of this last crime were most shocking. He would he sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with hard labor, and be detained for reformative treatment for a period not exceeding ten years.