BANK CLERK ACQUITTED

Taranaki Central Press, Volume IV, Issue 363, 18 February 1937, Page 6

BANK CLERK ACQUITTED

INVERCARGILL CASE.

BANK AFFRAY. Verdict Of Not Guilty Given By Jury. Invercargill, Last Night. A verdict of not guilty was returned by the jury this afternoon in the case in which Oswald Cameron Covie, a bank clerk aged 17 years, was charged with manslaughter, and the accused was discharged. The charge arose out of a shooting tragedy on the morning of Decem-

ber 27, when after a visit by four young men to the premises of the Bank of New Zealand at Invercargill Michael Fletcher was shot and killed.

In his address to the jury the Crown Prosecutor asked: “Did Cowie fire the shot which caused Fletcher’s dtath?” It the jury was not satisfied he did, he said, then that was the. end of the case. If it was satisfied he did then it would consider whether anything justified or excused his firing the shot. It conduct was excusable then Cowie should be acquitted, but if there was no excuse then, putting sentiment aside, it was the jury's duty to find a verdict Of guilty. The position was that Cowie said he did fire the shot that killed Fletcher and had sworn on oath that he fired the shot.

On matters of justification or excuse there Was no question of accident Cowie fired the shot and said he fired it at Fletcher. In the second place there was no question of self-defence. Fletcher was not threatening Cowie but was trying to get out of the door.

“It can only be characterised as an act of insensate folly,” said the Crown Prosecutor, who drew attention to the difference between the statement made to the police by Cowie and his evidence in he lower court.

For the defence Mr. Hanlon, who called no evidence, said he would ask the jury whether It had been proved to its entire satisfaction that Cowie fired the fatal shot. Someone else might have fired the fatal shot, suggested counsel. Wyatt in the ambulance had safd repeatedly that Ire did not want Cowie to lose his job and admitted that “he did it.” What did that mean? Could Wyatt, if he were in the dock, be convinced ou his admission? Then should Cowie because of his admission be convicted. None of the wtnesses had sworn that Cowie fired the shot or saw him fire it.

“Just Friendly Argument.

“At the bank, we are told, there was just a friendly argument. Yet 'one of the men took off his coat and punched Wyatt on the jaw,” said Mr. Hanlon. .“The evidence showed that Wyatt badly knocked about. The four men who visited the bank wero in a mood to be cantaiikerous and would not leave when asked to go by Wyatt.

In summing up His Honour said the sole question the jury must determine was whether Cowie killed a human being by an unlawful act, ami if he shot Fletcher whether the shooting in the circumstances Was unlawful. Generally speaking, it was an unlawful thing for any person to discharge a revolver -at another. It was very important that liberty should not be interfered with, but in the view of the law it was equally important that human beings should not be wrongfully deprived of life, and the law allowed it only in exceptional cases'. Was there, asked the judge, any attack at tile final stage upon Wyatt? Was force used to prevent an attack upon him? There was no one in contact with him, no threats had been made, and a revolver had not been produced or used. Finally, fear did not make an act committed under its influence' lawful if it was otherwise unlawful.

The jury retired at 4.20 p.m. and returned at 5.12 p.m. with a verdict of not quilty.

After discharging Cowie His Honour read a presentment made by the grand jury. It stated: “That this grand jury recommends that no minor should be left as' the guardian of a building with access to firearms.”