THE FEILDING SHOOTING CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVIII, Issue 260, 9 November 1897, Page 2

THE FEILDING SHOOTING CASE.

COURT OF APPEAL DECISION.

A VERDICT OF -NOT GUILTY."

(By Telegraph.—Press Association.)

WELLINGTON, Monday.

The case of Regina v. Looney was j argued in the Court of Appeal this afternoon. This is the Feilding shooting case, in which Thomas Looney and Annie Looney were charged under section 177 of the Criminal Code with having wounded Dr. Charlton, at Feilding, with intent to j do him grievous bodily harm. The female prisoner had fired Bhots with a revolver in the Feilding streets, the male prisoner ha\ing provided her with the weapon and ammunition, and, beingpresent, encouraged her. The Chief Justice directed the jury that if they thought what was done was done recklessly and in a spirit of general bravado, but without the intention of wounding Dr. Charlton or any person, and acquitted the prisoners on that account, they might, if they took that view of the facts, convict of wounding simply, that being an offence under section 186 of the criminal code. The jury found the prisoners guilty of wounding without intent. The Chief Justice reserved for the consideration of the Court of Appeal the question whether the direction was right and the conviction of an offence under section 186 could be sustained. That section makes it an offence to do actual bodily harm to any person under such circumstances that if death had been caused it would have been manslaughter. The question involved was whether the offence of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm included the lesser oifence of wounding recklessly, that is under circumstances which would have made it manslaughter if death had ensued. It was contended, for the Crown, that the wounding charged in the indictment must mean unlawful wounding with intent, that an offence under section ISO might be described as unlawful wounding, though without intent, and therefore an offence under section IS6 was included as a minor offence in the indictment, and that the jury had sufficiently and properly convicted of such an offence. The Court, however, held unanimously that there was much doubt whether the indictment sufficiently covered the offence under section 186, and that prisoners ought to have the benefit of the doubt, and they directed a verdict of not guilty to be entered. Mr Gully appeared for the Crown, and Mr Wilford for the prisoners. The Court adjourned to Wednesday, at eleven a.m., for the delivery of judgments.