THE OTAIO AFFRAY

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 48, Issue 252, 3 August 1928, Page 6

THE OTAIO AFFRAY

McCUNN ACQUITTED.

BLACKWELL GUILTY OX ONE COUNT.

(Special to the "Guardian.") TIMARU, This Bay. The trial of Bernard Lewis Blackwell and Ernest Gladstone McCunn, which arose out of an early morning disturbance at Otaio on May 11, in which the two men mentioned were wounded bv gunshot, was concluded at the Supreme Court before Mr Justice Adams yesterday afternoon, with the acquittal of McCunn on all counts, and a verdict of guilty against Blackwell on the charge of being found by night without lawful excuse on the premises, of William Alfred Ancell. On -the j charges oi breaking and entering the homes of Acell and Robert Barr, and of, assault on Mrs Ancell, Blackwell was .acquitted. ~ _. . , ! In his summing up, his Honor point- [ >ed out that the case was properly brought for trial. The case of Blackwell and of McCunn differed considerably. Breaking did not mean smashing, but entering a door or window, raising the barrier of anything like the flap of a tent. Entering meant the incoming of any part of a man's body into the protected area. A man's finger through a window had been held to be entering. Obviously McCunn's only object in going to the Ancell's had been to accompany Blackwell. If the former was in fact where the Crown said he was, then that would be a breach of the law in the offence charged; but what was his intention There was 1 no evidence that McCunn intended to commit a crime. He was probably there as an eavesdropper. If, in point of fact, the jury was satisfied that McCunn was on the premises, and if he had no excuse other than that \ which he had given, then he must be found guilty on the count of being there without lawful excuse.

Regarding Blackwell, the story was that he went to see his wife. He had admitted entering the house. He was stated to have used language of serious import, but perhaps _ this did not mean as much as was said. He went to the house without appointment. He did not knock, but went in, knocking a door down at 3 a.m., a time when all law-abiding people should be abed. Women would be seriously disturbed at such a time. Moreover, frequently Blackwell had been forbidden to come

to the house, including a police warn—ing. It was perfectly obvious from his own story that Blackwell arrived with a grievance. He should be found not guilty if his excuse was believed. If his intention was to annoy or intimidate, then he must be found guilty of the third and fourth counts. His Honor did not think there had been anv intent to commit a crime at law under the first count. Blackwell's story was that he was frightened and had gone head first through a window at the Barr's house. There was no wife of Blackwell's living at Barr's house, and if Barr and his wife were believed then Blackwell's story fell to the ground and he would be guilty of intimidation or annoying. It was the duty of the Crown to see that citizens were protected during those hours when he or she was in hours of sleep and most fancied security. The jury retired at 11.23 a.m. and returned with its verdict at 2.45 p.m., the luncheon adjournment intervening. McCunn was discharged and Blackwell was found guilty on the count of being unlawfully on premises. He was remanded till to-day for sentence.