MURDER CHARGE

Wairarapa Times-Age, 7 February 1941, Page 3

MURDER CHARGE

TRIAL OF C. H, LONGLEY

CROWN PROSECUTOR'S ADDRESS

CASE FOR THE DEFENCE

(By Trlpgraph—Press Association.) HAMILTON. February 6. The trial of Charles Harold Longley, aged 39. invalidity pensioner, Manunui. on a charge of murdering Geremiah O’Sullivan on September 22 last, reached its final stage in the Supreme Court today. After evidence of accused’s son and daughter had been given on events leading up to the tragedy, the wife of deceased told of the relations between the Longleys and her husband. The imporant question, said the Crown Prosecutor, Mr. H. T. Gillies, addressing the jury, was simply whether accused intended to shoot O’Sullivan. It was significant that there was an ominous silence by all the Longley family concerning the event from the moment of the tragedy till the police arrived. Accused had to travel 90 yards to Mackenzie’s home, and some time elapsed before accused said: "I never meant to do it." It seemed a belated attempt on the part of Longley to explain what had happened. Further evidence showed that Longley was a very good shot. He had been out shooting blackbirds the day before. Accused picked up his rifle, pointed it and fired past his wife to reach a bull’s eye. It was hardly a matter of importance, Mr. Gillies said, that O’Sullivan allegedly called Mrs. Longley a mongrel. It would require more than that to cause a man to kill. The question of insanity had not been raised by the defence, concluded Mr. Gillies, so that accused’s actions would have to be judged in the light of those of a sane man. Opening his address to the jury, Mr. King explained the grounds on which I the defence was based. Longley denied all intention of doing bodily harm to O'Sullivan and he did not know the rifle was loaded. Its discharge was purely accidental. Longley was a neurotic man and his actions differed from those of an ordinary man. The evidence of Senior-Sergeant Kelly seemed to show that the rifle had not been cleaned before it was fired. Hence the Crown could not say that Longley knew the rifle was loaded when he picked it up. There was no witness, said Mr. King, who could prove that Longley aimed the rifle at O’Sullivan, nor was it likely that Longley would risk firing! a shot intentially in a narrow passage] at the risk of striking his wife, a bigj woman, who was between O’Sullivan! and himself. Under such circumstances Longley I could not be convinced of murder. The; jury would only have to consider the question of manslaughter. Undoubtedly there had been provocation by O’Sullivan, while it had to be remembered that Longley was a neurotic and impulsive man. The defence, therefore, challenged oven the charge of manslaughter. ]