MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVIII, Issue 211, 4 September 1917, Page 6

MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE.

PIHAXA SENT FOR TRIAL. The hearing of the charges against the young Maori, Jack Pihana (22). of having caused, bodily harm to James White Hooker on August 11 by a negligent act, anJ, alternatively., of having killed Jas. W. Hooker, was continued yesterday before Mr. F. V. Frazcr, S.M. Evidence was given by two military police to the effect that they saw the Maori, running away from and pursued by Constable H&nt. run on to the footpath in Queen street and endeavour to cut between two pedestrians who were going in the opposite direction. One of the pedestrians was .Tas. W. Hooker, and both witnesses stated that Pihana, in trying to rush between them, stooped a little and knocked Hooker on the right side with his shoulder, the collision causing both Hooker and the Maori to fall. Both witnesses -were quite positive that the constable had not overtaken Pihana when the collision occurred, and though he was almost within reaching distance he had not touched either the Maori or Hooker before the collision occurred. The constable caught hold of Pihana after the collision occurred and the latter had stumbled. This account of the occurrence was also given by Constable [Hunt, who added that Hooker was immediately carried to the wharf police station, where he was found to -be suffer- j ing internally. (The prior medical evidence wa« to the effect" that Jas. W. Hooker died the following day as the result of the bursting of a large cyst on one of his kidneys). Mr. Graham, for the accused, submitted that the evidence disclosed a homicide .which was the result of a negligence or culpability not sufficient to sustain a charge of manslaughter, but that the death of the man Hooker was the result really of misadventure to a person whose health was such that any accidental pressure upon tbe part of his body in the region of his kidneys might cause death. , Hia "Woiship stated the question of whether or not accused's actions were such as might be considered culpable I negligence was essentially oue for a jury | to decide. Consequently accused, who pleaded "not guilty," would be com-i mitted to the Supreme Court for trial. Bail would be allowed in one surety of! £100.