NOT GUILTY

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 64, Issue 179, 11 May 1944, Page 4

NOT GUILTY

SOLDIER ACCUSED OF MURDER. DEATH OF AN AMERICAN. CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL. (P.A.) AUCKLAND, May 10. A verdict of not guilty on the charge against a New Zealand soldier, Thomas Rex Beagle, aged 19, of having murdered an American serviceman on March 3, Avas returned by the jury in the Supreme Court. The trial commenced on Monday morning, and evidence was given by 21 witnesses for (lie Crown. It Avas alleged that accused shot the serviceman Avitli a rifle in a sentry-hox at a military camp at Papakitra. The case Avas heard before Mr Justice Fair. Mr V. R. Meredith and Mr Williams appeared for the Crown, and Mr A. L. Tompkins, of Hamilton, and Mr 0. H. Wallace for the defence.

At the conclusion of the Crown case Mr Tompkins said lie did not propose to call evidence for the defence. Mr Meredith .said the only legal defence for Beagle Avas justification and a plea of such provocation as Avould cause Beagle to act in the heat of passion and without self-control. An insulting suggestion had been made in the afternoon and in the light of a boyhood incident recalled during the case one would have expected Beagle to have- thoroughly assaulted the American, or to have told him off and left him. Instead, he argued and nagged and eventually they dined together and went together in a friendly Avay to Papakura camp. The slackness of the guard at the camp, commented Mr Meredith, was quite irrelevant to the case, as also was the- question Avhether or not Val- | lely, the corporal of the guard. Avas I prejudiced against Beagle. Counsel emphasised that Beagle bad said to Vallely: “I’m going to shoot this Yank,” and that a feAV minutes | later the American was shot. The story of the boyhood incident, said Mr Meredith, Avas mentioned only when Beagle Avas faced Avitli the grave responsibility of the American’s death. How Beagle had reacted to th i first suggestion had to be remembered, and also that the second suggestion of an insulting nature came to Beagle after he had bad a meal and had some hours to recover from any effects of drink. Therefore counsel submitted, the evidence supported the charge of murder. If the jury felt that Beagle had been so horrified by the improper suggestion as to lose self control completely, then the charge might be reduced to manslaughter. Counsel’s Address. For Lhe defence Mr Tompkins said it Avas not disputed that the American’s death avus caused by a shot from the accused’s rifle; but that, did not mean he Avas guilty of murder. Even if it was proved that the shot was fired by accused, that did not prove murder. The Crown had to prove that the shooting amounted to murder; that it was unlawful shooting, and not 1 justified;’ that it Avas done intentionally, and that it Avas not a. shooting provoked by the American’s action. The act which the American suggested to accused was regarded as a serious offence- in NeAV Zealand, and it Avas held that a suggestion could be regarded as an attempt. It appeared from the medical evidence that accused had blindly shot from the hip, Avithout deliberately aiming. “I put it to you that he shot in the belief that lie Avas protecting himself at the time,” said counsel. He asked the jury to consider if it avus any wonder that accused “saAV red.’' when the suggestion was repeated at the sentry-box, and acted in the heat of passion and lost his sell control. Was his condition, hysterical and upset, as described by Dr. Hercus, consistent with deliberate shooting? Counsel contended that tlie evidence showed that the act was completely unpremedialed and done under provocation.

His Honor Sums Up

Summing up, his Honor said the jury had to be satisfied by the evidence that the accused had deliberately intended to take life, or intended to do some act. tliat was unlawful, and did it. If either of these conditions was satisfied, the jury was bound to find a verdict of murder. If anyone intentionally killed another, that was an offence of either murder or manslaughter, unless tfie perpetrator committed the act. in defence*of his own life or that of some other person, or if 1,0 apprehended grievous bodly harm that, could only be avoided by action leading to the death of another. No matter how contemptible a man s action might appear, it was not for any individual to decide that it merited the infliction of death. Killing could only be reduced from murder to manslaughter if the accused person had received provocation of such a nature as to deprive an ordinary person of his self control, or where he acted before his passion had time to cool. Evidence of reports made by accused to members of the guard after the shooting did not seem to indicate that the American had intended to do him bodily uarm. It seemed there was evidence from which the jury might conclude that a shameful suggestion had been again made to the accused at the sentry-box. The jury might rightly consider that that was an insult of a gross nature. His Honor said that Dr. Ilorc.us, m evidence, had stated that accused might, be under some fear complex. “I doubt whether that is relevant. ’ lie added. He suggested Ilia! Ibis evidence should he considered with great caution and care, as it might, be thought that it had over-weighed the factor of a fear complex. The jury would have to consider the effect of a boyhood experience on a youth of 19. and might think that to describe it as a, fear complex was not in accordance with that effect. Such a person might, lie touchy and resentful. When the suggestion was repeated to the accused at Hie sentry-box he might he resentful. hut tHey had to consider whether he would lose his self-control and shoot the American.

His Honor said the jury would have to take into account with the evidence all that Mr Meredith and Mr Tompkins had said, “ft you come lo the conclusion that the accused intentionally killed, without lawful excuse of any kind, your duty is to find him guilty of murder,” concluded his Honor, ‘if von find lie was killed under provocation, you will find him guilty ot manslaughter, and if you are of opinion that this act was done in order to protect himself from grievous bodily harm, ho is entitled to he acquitted.'' After the verdict the accused was discharged,