MANSLAUGHTER.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 188, 9 August 1924, Page 11

MANSLAUGHTER.

JOSE PH BARNES SENTENCED.; jjjf YEARS SARD LABOTTEt. j' j USB OF TirF. KXIFE. \ I JUDGE'S STRONG COMMENT. j' ~ I (By Telesrarb.— I'™=" A.«si"\a!lon.) . WELLINGTON. t ; iia day. Josep h Barnes, found r:;!.j of man,! tlau rbter in connection «r..» the dentil flStor Colin VVfcail ';" May 1, wa, >«d to ten years' imprisonment Sh hard labour. | Counsel referred to ~-.-. n«r S good . He had :>.-<, rejected in; WtnOia, but had gone to Knsland and W at the front, being wounded and ILcd Tb-re was no premutation J: the crime. The man ua-s ot food, Marfirrpnr ...id that) -risoner had enticed away ik wife ot and naturally resented j Htore than nncv he had .braced the' Uoner. The jury had v.ken a merciful licw that prisoner ha.! a, ted under proStau Xonc the k«. he had killed a fcUew being. The use of tho knifo in JJSES of this kind mu.-t he put an end to and it was his plain duty to inflict aj substantial pcntlty. In his summing up b.'fnre the case. •sat to the jury, his Hmior said that: there were two distinct fights on May 1, in the first of which Whall was distinctly the aggressor, having ?']\en P.arncs a probably well deserved thrash- : ing. In the second fight, or affray,! Barne3 was, according to the Crown case, the aggressor, and had attacked ; Wiall with a knife. There was evidence that this was so, so far as Whall being tie first and Barnes tho asgressor in the second affray. It could be°taken for granted that there was no kniie in the hands nf cither man during the first scuffle. It wa' in the second affray that the knife was seen, and, according to Mr. Wells' evidence, it was 3faiife to which Barnes "as accustomed, aiid knew how to use. There could be Toy little doubt as to the actual happenings: the evidence was clear enough. The police evidence went to support, the independent testimony, and it went further to show that the statement, triven to , the police by Barnes was unreliable. j The evidence all went to show that! Barnes five minutes after the thrashing he had received, and still smarting under it, had slipped out •■<" the house and phffiged a knife into Whall. Accused's counsel had dene the best he could with the very limited resources which the case afforded. Various theories had been put forward. One was that Whall had accidentally impaled himself on the knife held by Barnes. Tf that were so. win- did not Barnes tell the police that ? There were two good reasons: The first was that it was not true, and th,e second was that Barnes knew it was such a ridiculous explanation that it would not be believed. He had better sense than to make mich an explanation. Whnll had tried after he was stabbed: <- The got mc." Was that what a man would fay who had deliberately impaled him-; self ona knife, or who had committed kra-kiri? The jury, as hefore stated, found a verdict of guilty of manslaughter.