DEATH SENTENCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 14 February 1921, Page 5

DEATH SENTENCE.

MATTHEWS FOUND GUILTY. PRISONER TO BE HANGED. INSANITY NOT UPHELD. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Christchurch, Feb. 12. The trial of Reginald Matthews for the murder of Clarence Wagstaff, at Timaru, on October 27 last, was concluded in the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Herdman to-day, and a verdict of guilty was returned, and the prisoner was sentenced to death. Addressing the jury, Mr. A. T. Donnelly (Crown Prosecutor) recapitulated the main points on which the Crown case rested. By raising a defence of insanity accused’s counsel had admitted that Matthews fired the fatal shot, though by reason of mental disease it was claimed that he must be held, free from responsibility for his crime and from the punishment that normally would accompany it.’ There were many grades of mental disease. A by-law in section 43 of the Crimes Act set a definite and distinct standard of insanity. “RECKLESS AND CRIMINAL” The crime committed by Matthews, said Mr. Donnelly, was an ordinary offence, committed from ordinary motives, by an ordinary individual The only difference was that accused was reckless and criminal beyond the average. He was in imminent peril of recapture by the police, who would at once send him back to gaol, and as soon as he saw that capture was likely he drew a pistol and shot Wagstaffe dead. The only difference between him and an ordinary criminal was that he was prepared to shoot and kill. He would submit, said counsel, that there was no need to consider the 'state of accused’s mind from a_n alienist’s point of view. He had asked Dr. Crossbie if he could find any act of the accused at the time of the murder that was other than that of a sane though desperate man, and the doctor had admitted that he could not. The onus of proof Was on the defence, and if the evidence failed to show insanity the defence must fail. He submitted that the whole case for insanity had withered and faded. The case was extraordinary only in the criminality of accused. If the accused’s life had not been one series of conflicts with the police and flouting of the law—if his record had been a clean one—the defence, he suggested, would not have put forward the plea of insanity. The plain truth of the matter was that Matthews was merely in the position of an outlaw. That was shown by the fact that wherever he was found' in quiet and peaceful cities in New Zealand Matthews was prowling about armed like a soldier. Everybody was his enemy, everybody’s hand was against him, and he was prepared to commit murder to avoid capture. It was submitted that Matthews had committed the murder of Wagstaffe at Timaru. _ JUDGE SUMS UP. His Honor, summing up, quoted the leo-al definition of insanity. Applied to the present case it must be interpreted as meaning that accused did not understand that he was shooting and killing, and that his insanity prevented him from knowing that what he was doing was wrong His Honor added: “Does the evidence satisfy you that he did not know that he was shooting a man, and that it was wrong! If it does, you will acquit him on the ground of insanity. If on the other hand, you are convi’need that he knew that shooting was wrong, that if he shot he was likely to kill, Cnd that in shooting he was doing wrong, the defence of insanity goes, and if you are convinced that he was there you will convict him.” His * Honor, after summarising the medical, evidence, asked: “(1) Is there sufficient evidence called by the Crown to prove that Wagstaffe was killed by accused at Timaru on October 27. (2) Has accused, by his evidence, fulfilled the onus cast upon him of establishing to vour satisfaction that if he killed Wagstaffe at Timaru on October 2/ he was sufficiently insane to be within the meaning of the code? If you are satisfied, after considering the evidence, than prisoner did commit the act of murder on October 27, but that he did not know the nature and quality of the act he was committing, then it is your duty, under those circumstances, to find that the prisoner was insane at the time of the committal of the offence, and to acquit him on the grounds of insanity. If, aft.er weighing the evidence, you take the view that insanity has not been proved, and that Matthews understood the nature and quality of the act he was committing, your plain duty is to convict him. If you have any doubt about the matter, then it is your duty to acquit him ” THE JURY’S VERDICT. The jury retired at 11.37 a.m., and returned an hour later with a verdict of guilty, and, further, that it had found accused to be sane at the time of the commission of the crime. When the usual question was put by the Registrar, Matthews, who was laboring under deep stress, bit hard into his lip, and for a moment it appeared as if he were about to speak, but no words came. His Honor placed the black cap on his head and passed sentence of death. His Honor complimented the police officers concerned in the case on the manner in which the evidence had been collected and presented to the Court.