HIGGINS GUILTY.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 38, 14 February 1924, Page 5

HIGGINS GUILTY.

SENTENCED TO DEATH. -AST STAGES OF TRIAL. HEADMASTER'S TACT COMMENDED. At 18 minutes to 1 this afternoon sentence of death was passed upon John Christopher Higgins for the murder of two schoolboys at Waikino on October 19. The court was crowded to its utmost capacity during the closing stages of the four days' trial, and counsels' speeches and his Honor Mr. Justice Stringer's summing up were followed with rapt interest. As his Honor stated, there was nothing in the summing up to indicate what his Honor's own opinion was upon the case. The jury retired to their room to consider the verdict at 11.25. The crowd in the court apparently did not anticipate a lengthy wait, for few if any left the precincts of the building. An hour and a-quarter afterwards there was a rush into the courthouse, and a few moments later the jury returned looking unusually solemn. There was no doubt to the observer what their verdict would be, and the solemnity of the jurymen was soon reflected in the faces of the public as well as those engaged in the trial. A hush fell upon everybody as the Registrar, Mr. Terry, asked: Gentlemen of the Jury, have you agreed upon your verdict? "We have," responded the foreman. ] "Do you find the prisoner guilty or not guilty?" "We find the prisoner guilty." "And so say ycu all?" "So say we all." The foreman added: Tf your Honor pleases, it is the wish of the jury that I should express to your Honor their appreciation of the tact and courage of Mr. Reid, the schoolmaster, and also their high appreciation of the manner— the very able manner —in tbe ease has been presented to the court and jury. I The Registrar: Prisoner, you have i been found guilty of murder. Have you ! anything to say why the sentence of the court should not be passed upon you? Mr. Sullivan: The .prisoner does not desire to say anything. At this stage in the brief proceedings the Court Crier called for silence while the judgment of death was pronounced upon the prisoner, but it was unnecesi sary, fox one could have heard a pin drop. His Honor then addressed Higgins: "Prisoner at the bar, after a careful trial and after an able defence, the jury have found you guilty of the crime of murder." Then, placing tbe black cap upon his head his Honor continued: "It only remains for mc to pass upon you the sentence prescribed by law. which is that you be taken to the place of execution and there be hanged by the neck until you are dead." Higgins heard the sentence quietly, there being no difference in his demeanour from the moment he entered the dock. He stood in a stupid fashion until a warder tapped him on the shoulder, when he turned and went down the steps at the rear of the dock out of sight of the public. Mr. Meredith, the Crown Prosecutor, then addressed the Judge, and said that the thanks of the community were due to the lady teachers who at the time of the tragedy shepherded the children finally to places of safety; and also to the miners who rushed from the battery absolutely unarmed, and who got to the school at the earliest possible moment before the police, with a view of protecting human life and doing what could he done to prevent further harm. His Honor said the way these people acted under very trying circumstances was a matter for congratulation. The jurymen were granted three years' exemption from service, and the court was then adjourned. Speech for Defence. In his address Mr. Sullivan pointed out that Dr. Gunson had attached great importance to the fact that the head master's dog had barked loudly when Higgins approached the school, because that incident would light up the delusion that an enemy was attacking his house. Higgins shot the children of his best friends, his fellow countrymen, and I the crime was thus motiveless. Did he know the nature and quality of the act when he shot Mr. Reid, one of his three best friends, in order to get past him into the school? From the evidence of Mr. Montague, the Paeroa solicitor, it was clear that two years ago Higgins was not fit t obe at large. Had he then been confined, afterwards escaping ami committing this crime, would the jury have found him guilty? Counsel ther detailed the chief points in the evidence and said he was satisfied that if it wen fully weighed up the jury would comi to the conclusion that Higgins was insane and did not know the nature and quality of the act. The Crown's View. Mr. V. R. Meredith, Crown Prosecutor said the issue was exceedingly simple He would not detail the evidence, so as to avoid the suggestion that he was appealing to their feelings rather than to their reason. In most cases of alleged murder, where the defence was criminal irresponsibility by reason of insanity, the issue was generally whether the man was definitely sane on the one hand or insane on the other. The present case was peculiar in that on practically Ihe whole of the evidence, both for the Crown and for the defence, Higgins was suffering from a degree of insanity, the issue was therefore simply whether in spite of that, Higgins came within that, degree of insanity which excluded him from responsibility for the criminal act. Did Higgins know what would be the result of his act, and did he know he was doin" wrong? Counsel did not question "the sincerity of the defence witnesses, but it was recognised that the j study of mental diseases and insanity: was' peculiarly a matter for experts. Automatism —action in the dream state was only known among epileptics, and there was no suggestion that Higgins was an epileptic. Counsel pointed out that Higgins' so-called "delusions" actually existed, because he did have trouble with his neighbours. His Honor's Summing-up. In summing up. his Honor Mr. Justice Stringer said every man was innocent till he was proved to be guilty, but in this case it was admitted that the accused had caused the death of tbe children. It generally fell on the Crown to prove that a man was guilty, but here the onus was on the defence to prove that the accused was not responsible for his actions. It was not con-

tested by the defence that the accused committed the dreadful deed of shooting innocent school children. That being so, Higgins was subject to the penalties of the law for murder, unless he had exhibited to the satisfaction of the jurythat at the time of the tragedy he was irresponsible within the definition of the law. His Honor asked the jury to return its verdict in one or other of two definite forms—either a simple verdict of guilty in case the prisoner was not irresponsible, or on the other hand that he was insane at the time of the commission of the crime. Mental Health. There was no such thing as perfect mental health, any more than there was any such thing as perfect bodily health, and the jury had to decide when imperfect mental health had reached the stage when responsibility should cease. It was not sufficient, continued his Honor, to prove that the man was insane in order to make him irresponsible, for the reason that that would include even the smallest unbalance. As it was impossible to define what insanity was, the law had established a criterion that the insanity must be of such an extent as to deprive a person of understanding of the nature and quality of the act committed and of knowing that it was wrong. "The jury may accept it as clear —the weight of evidence on both sides is to that effect—that Higgins is insane and that he suffers from deiu--1 sional insanity, and the question you i have to determine is whether on October 19 it had reached such a stage that lie was no longer responsible for his actions." His Honor then mentioned Mr. Sullivan's suggestion that the accused suffered from paranoia, and pointed out had that been so Higgins' whole life would have been dominated by his delusion, so much so that he could not maintain any steady employment. The Crown admitted the accused suffered from delusions, but not to the extent that ho was unable to go about his ordinary avocations. In conclusion, his Honor said he had carefully refrained from giving any indication of his own opinion in the case. It was entirely for the jury. I His Honor's address occupied about twenty minutes, the three speeches having finished by 11.25, when the jury retired to consider their verdict.