Millionaire’s Son Gaoled
Verdict of Manslaughter Returned
nma»rzj ICHARD JOSHUA REYNOLDS, 23, a rich young IS American, and one of tiie heirs to an estate of £10,000,000, was sen'Dye'll fenced at tlie Old Bailey, London, to five months’ imprisonment in the second division for manslaughter. Reynolds was alleged to have been under the influence of drink when, at Burnham, on the Bath Road, on May 14, he drove his saloon car into Arthur Graham, a Slough motorcyclist, who was killed. A Second Trial The trial of Reynolds lasted four days, and tlie jury was absent halt an hour in considering its verdict. Previously a trial before Mr. Justice •Humphreys and another jury was stopped by the judge owing to the foreman of the jury having siioken with two witnesses for ihe defence. In his summing-up at the second trial, Mr. Justice Humphreys criticised Sir Bernard Spilsbury, the eminent pathologist, for part of his evidence. The judge said the fact that Reynolds was an American should not make the smallest difference to the way the jury regarded the case. With regard to this mad’s wealth, you ought not to make the smallest difference in the way in which you look at this case from the fact that he is a very rich man. *Tf he has used some of his wealth in order to behave generously to the widow of the man whose death he is charged with, he has done no more than the law could compel him to do. “You will try him just as you would a London costermonger charged witli
knocking somebody down through driving a cart furiously.” Referring to the evidence of Sir Bernard Spilsbury, Mr. Justice Humphreys said that he thought it time to intervene when he (Sir Bernard) was asked whether a man inside the car would have been likely to have j head'd the impact with Graham’s j motor-cycle. “It is highly undesirable,” said the J judge, “that an acknowledged expert in medicine, as Sir Bernard is, should attempt to become an expert in matters of which* he has no more experience than anybody else, including members of the jury. Provided for Widow “Sir Bernard said that oil that point he was only speaking as a member of the public. His evidence as a member of the public is no more valuable than that of a shoeblack, and I think his evidence should be confined to medical matters, on which he speaks with acknowledged authority. “Whether you think ft possible for the driver of the car to have been unaware that he had hit somebody or something is for you to decide, and I j cannot allow anyone, however eminent j in the realm of science, to come and i say what might happen in a motor-! car unless he was* in it himself.” Mr. N. Birkett, K.C., urged as a mitigating factor that Reynolds had j provided Graham’s widow with a sum * for life which would bring in moro j than the wages which Graham had i earned. Passing sentence, Mr. Justice j Humphreys said that Reynolds had i been convicted of a most serious crime ■ on evidence which could leave no ■ doubt in the minus of any impartial ! person. Addressing Reynolds, the judge said: “I hope and believe this trial has been ; a lesson for life. I cannot take into account in tlie sentence tlie fact that you have provided out of your great riches some sum for the* widow of the man you killed.” Reynolds was ordered to pay the whole of the costs of the prosecution | in both courts. Reynolds's Career Although only 23 years of age, Reynolds has led an adventurous life, both across the Atlantic and in London and Paris. He is a youth with marked philanthropic bent. The “down and outs” have always attracted him, and while in London he spent a number of nights on the Thames Embankment j dressed as a tramp in order that he j might learn at first hand the life j stories of London’s life failures. When he found what he decided were genuine cases, he did not hesitate to ! play the part of a fairy godmother. In | his studies of the submerged tenth he j has passed the night in common lodg- | ing houses. At one period he spent ! three weeks in tlie Limehouse region, posing as a “Jack ashore.” seeking out j genuine cases for his bounty.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/SUNAK19291012.2.189
Bibliographic details
Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 792, 12 October 1929, Page 20
Word Count
739Millionaire’s Son Gaoled Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 792, 12 October 1929, Page 20
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Sun (Auckland). You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.