ATTEMPTED MURDER

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 51, Issue 206, 13 June 1931, Page 3

ATTEMPTED MURDER

NUNN FOUND GUILTY.

SEVEN YEARS’ REFORMATIVE, (Per Press Association). NAPIER, June 12. Hubert Frederick Nunn, who was charged with attempting the murder of Mavis Smith, at Hastings on April 8, was found guilty in the Supreme Court to-day and sentenced by the Chief Justice to seven years’ reformative detention.

In sentencing prisoner, Ins Honor said he did not regard accused as of stable mentality, but he was very far from being insane as laid down by the legal definition. At the same time, his Honor said, human life must be protected, and offences of this type could not be allowed to be committed. His Honor added that he did not intend to inflict a term of imprisonment with hard labour, but would sentence accused to a long period 'of reformative detention. During that time he would be under observation.

Mr Hallett said the evidence he had proposed to call would indicate that Nunn was suffering from moral insanity and not intellectual insanity. His Honor: I fear I do not see the difference. Accused Examined. When the hearing was resumed this morning Mr Hallett continued his examination of accused. He asked, “When did you first realise you had sliot Mavis?” Accused: When I reached home. Mr Lusk: Did you say to Miss Smith that if you could not have her no one else would?—Yes. What did you mean by that?—l did not mean to harm her.

Did you intend to kill her or to kill any man who separated you?—No. I did not mean it that way. His Honor: But what did you mean? —Well, I loved Mavis with all my heart, and it hurt me to know any other man should have her if I didn’t. I never intended to harm her.

His Honor: All right, then. Did Not Remember Shooting. Mr Lusk: You remember all the details of the conversation, but do not remember the actual shooting?—That is so. Why did you take the gun from the car?—l don’t know. But why did you?—l intended to frighten. His Honor: But how frighten her? Witness: Not Miss Smith, Sir. His Honor: Then whom did you intend to frighten?—l thought she was coming home with another man. Mr Lusk: What were you going to do to him?—l don’t know. His Honor: You realised when you got home you had shot the girl?— r Yes. Did you not hear her call out, “Dad, dad!”—l don’t remember, sir. You did not take long to get away ? —<No, it would seem 1 did not take long. ✓ When did you write the letter.'— About half an hour after I got home. When did you put it in the upholstery of the settee? —When the police arrived. Did you put it tjiere to conceal it from them?—Yes. They had told me Mavis was not dead.

Statement to Police. Then the police questioned you?— Yes. And you said, “I did not shoot her. I may have been instrumental in doing so”—I must have said so. I was dazed at the time. Did you say you did not shoot Aliss Smith, and you could say who but would not do so just then?—Yes. That is also what you told the doctor for some time later ?—Yes. This is the first time you have admitted shooting the girl ?—That is «o. The girl says you bluntly asked her to many you- that night, and when she said" “No,” you said, “Then I’ll shoot you”?—I don’t remember saying that to her. Why did you have the gun?—Not to shoot Mavis, sir. But why have a gun?—At the very worst to frighten somebody. Who?—Not Mavis. I thought she had come home with another mail. Did you intend to shoot him?—No, just frighten him, perhaps. Counsel’s Address. Addressing the jury, Mr Hallett said the act was not premeditated. Up till midnight accused had no intention _or committing any wrong. Nunn was infatuated with the girl, and for a considerable period the affection was mutual. Miss Smith was away from Hastings for some time, and accused heard she had returned. He went purely to see the girl he was m love with and whom he had not seen tor some months. There was nothing sinister about that. He suspected that Miss Smith was going out with another man. It was quite probable lie intended to frighten, not Miss Smith, but the other mau. That probably was why he took the gun from the car. He was madly in love with her, and it was highly improbable he would deliberately'kill her. Counsel entreated the -jury to believe Nunn’s story, in which he said he had no intention of injuring Miss Smith and did not recollect what had happened until, afterwards. Summing up, his Honor outlined < simple illustration of a man who had a debt owing to him, and after making representations for payment, threatened to shoot the debtor if it was not naid. When an account was submitted later for payment, the debtor refused to make payment, and lie was shot at. Subsequently the creditor said he shot his debtor, but did not mean to do it. His Honor contended the present case was practically identical to Ins illustration. If a defence of that kind was to be accepted, his Honor remarked, he was thankful the responsibility was that of the jury and not his. Iheie was no doubt accused was infatuated with the girl and .had n>ade a threat which lie had earned into- effect. it was true there was nothing sinister m bavins a «mn in the car so long as lie Mt it" there Nunn evidently thought she was dead and bad cleaved out shortly afterwards lie bad written a letter ‘in which he stated he had always vowed that no other man would have the girl When questioned by the police, there was time for him to have said he did not intend to shoot the crirl, and not merely to have said he did not do it, but knew who did .. The jury returned a verdict of puilty after forty minutes’ retirement. FRANK KERR FOUND GUILTY. TO BE SENTENCED ON MONDAY. (Per Press Association). AUCKLAND, June 11. Frank James Kerr, aged 40 years, was found guiltv to-day m the Supreme

Court at Hamilton on a charge of attempting to murder Gertrude Edith West, aged 18, at Te Awamutu on January 24- . _ r Sentence was postponed till Monday.