WESTPORT MURDER CASE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 3195, 21 May 1909, Page 5

WESTPORT MURDER CASE.

CONNELLY FOUND GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER. A SENTENCE OF TEN YEARS' IMPRISONMENT. jßy Telegraph—Press Association. CHRISTUHURCH, May 20. The Westport murder trial Was continued to-day. Messrs Hanlon and Stringer addressed the jury, and His Honor summed up favourable to the Crown's tneory that Connelly was guilty of manslaughter. The following issues were submitted to the jury, which retired at 5.33 p.m.:—(l) Is accused guilty or not gulty. If yes, (2) is he guilty of murder, or (3) is he guilty of manslaughter? (4) If you [find |him guilty of either, then do you find it is proved that he was**assisted"as alleged in his original written statemen? The jury returned at 58.35 p.m. with the following replies:—To No. 1, guilty; to No. 2, not guity of murder; to Nc. 3, guilty of manslaughter; and to No. 4, no. The jury added that they desired to express a very strong recommendation to mercy. . Prisoner stated he was 19 years of age, and had nothing to say why sentence should not be passed on him. His Honor said, in addressing Connelly, that after a very careful trial, in respect to which he —Connelly— had received every assistance that he could expect from rouasel, he had been found guilty of manslaughter. The jury had also found that he had failed to establish the defence he had SJtup that Hallinen and Andersen had been with him. Considering the history of the case. His Honor thought he ought to express his entire concurrance with the jury on ail these points. It had been impossible to listen to evidence in the case without coming to the conclusion that the vcr'Tct of (he Hokitika jury was justified, sni] it was clear that the true account of the transaction was that disclosed in the confession, which prisoner had somewhat belatedly made. The jury had taken a favourable view of the prisoner's action in recommending him to

mei'-cy. They must be assumed tc have found that the, prisoner acted possibly under the influence of liquor, and certainly without any realisation vf the consequence or his brutality. Prisoner's offence had been a very serious • one—indeed, young as he was, he had already had a career of crime. His Honor said he must inflict a substantial sentence — -a sentence which to some extent would go beyond the one he was already serving. His Honor sentenced prisoner to ten years' imprisonment, the sentence to be concurrent with th.3 sentence imposed on him for perjury- .