SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 195, 15 February 1912, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

CHRISTCHURCH SESSIONS,

/CONVICTED OF ATTEMPTED MURDER.

Ity Tei«gra|»h—Pr«s Associativa. Christchurch, Last Night. At the Supreme Court, in the case against James Gibbons, charged with attempted murder of Mrs. Elizabeth 'Mackenzie at Sydenham on December 18, Donnelly, counsel for accused, did not call evidence, but addressed the jury. Be said there could be no question 'as to the atrocity of the attack, and the only defence possible was that at the time «f the occurrence he was mad and incapable of knowing what he was doing, fr a man, though drunk, attacked anyone while still capable of forming intention he was liable, but when in drinking lie brought himself to a state of madness he was free of criminal responsibility. He quoted remarks by Justice Patterson in a case against a man Crewes where the learned judge had declared that intent had to *be shown, and that the j man's state of intoxication wbb import-' " ant in its bearing on the. paint as ton - [ whether or not a man waa able to form an intention, and that where a man wag' unable to > form an intention he was not liable. The very severity of the wound showed that the man was mad. It almost spoke and proved that the man waa past being merely drunk. A quiet, inoffensive man would.not have attempted 1 murder over the trivial postponement* ot^ 1 * a game of cards, unless he had lost :hfr reason temporarily. • > 1 ' ,<l His Honor, addressing the jury! said that a normal man was held to be responsible for his acts, and where a man attacked a woman with a razor it would be generally held that the intention was to kill, but jn the present case the plea j : was that the man was insane. Insanity was defined by statute in New Zealand* which declared every man should be held to be sine until proved to the contrary, and that no man laboring under imbecility or a diseased mind would be convicted, nor where a 'man was incapable of understanding or knowing what be '■ was doing or. that his act was wrong. The line was drawn sharply between men who were insane and those whose moral restraint had been broken down by drink.. Drnnkennesswas not a disease of the mind. It was quite dear that Gibbons • intended to cut the woman's throat.. He was sufficiently sober to know that a razor would cut her throat, and to -find it, so that to say that he was incapable of knowing what he was doing was, to his mind, absurd. His r«mark to Mrs. Hensley that he "would dp . for" the woman was a further proof of his capability of intention. Undoubtedly his moral restraint had teen restroy«d by the drinfc. The jury had a duty to • the public in the case.

| After'retiring for 50 minutes the jury v returne(J a verdict of guilty, with a recommendation to mercy on account of the prisoner's previous g«od character. Hss Honour, at a liter stage in the proceedings, sentenced Gibbons to five years' imprisonment.

Tom H. Selwood was found not guilty of alleged unnatural v\ Williato whjp sento tnr'ee years' iSipnS(lnta?jit fpr, ' theft from the perfeon, has demanded a re-trial, as one of the jury, was not sworn.