TRIAL OF WHATA RUA.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVII, Issue 240, 7 October 1916, Page 10

TRIAL OF WHATA RUA.

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. - v , JURY'S FINDING. PRISONER DISCHARGED. The trial of Whata Rua, son of the] prophet" Rua. charged before 'Mr.' Justice Hosking at the Supreme Court With intent to\lo bodily harm to Constables Neil and Williamson, canie to an abrupt termination yesterday afternoon. The Hon. J. "a. Tole. EX., appeared for the Crown, and Mr. J. R. Lundon for the prisoner. After hearing the evidence of Henry Dunbar Johnson as to the meaning of certain Maori phrases, the foreman of the jury Intimated to his Honor that it had been shown without doubt that accused had possession of the axe, and the point to be decided was that of intent. His Honor: . The whole point of intent depends upon what view you take of the act. If a man took up a gun, pointed it in the direction of anyone, and then worked the trigger, and the gun was discharged and killed a man, you would say he meant to do so. If it fell short of that, and he pointed the gun at someone, worked the trigger, but stopped short before anything furI ther happened, you could conclude that there was an attempt. Whether he intended to- do anything must depend I upon what you deduce from his acts. If it was in play, you-might say it was a mere accident, and that he did not think the gun was going- to go off. In this case, as far as I can see; the evidence g-hich the police have given varies in detail. You have this —the axe was picked up, and he ran. From others you have it that he held it first in his two , hands, and then raised it over his head. The fact of holding it in his two i hands and running in the direction of Rua might possibly indicate an attempt. The evidence of soma of the police is that when lie got in the vicinity of Kua he raised it. What did he raise it for? Ifid he raise it for the purpose of striking? If you come to the conclusion that he did, and that he was only prevented from striking .by someone interfering, then you can be justified in coming to the "conclusion not only that he attempted to strike, but' that he dul it with intent. Six constables, continued his Honor, had given evidence, and their evidence varied as to the striking. The evidence of two he did not think would warrant a conviction.' Constable lfaloney"s evidence stated that when he got within two yards the position of the axe was not eh'angeu. anJ according to the same witness the axe was not lifted. It would be for the jury to aay which of the storiag told by the constables they would accept—that which said the axe was lifted, cr that which said it was not. His feeling was that it was not a very satisfactory caic to put to a jury. His. Honor asked if the jury had come to a definite conclusion, in reply to which tiie foreman said they would like to consider the matter. After retiring for teu minutes they returned a verdict or not guilty. His Honor: You think on the evidence of the Crown and the evidence of the prisoner himself there is not sufficient evidence to show an attempt with intent to strike. The Foreman: Yes, your Honor. The prisoner was then discharged. As the case was expected to last several days longer, waiting juTors had been discharged till Wednesday, and the Court was adjourned till 10.30 a.m. on that day.