MANSLAUGHTER.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 264, 7 November 1929, Page 9

MANSLAUGHTER.

VERDICT AGAINST CAFFERY. STRONG PLEA FOR MERCY. "NOT FULLY GUILTY." * A verdict of manslaughter against George Caffery was returned by the jury in the Nelson Street murder trial, a strong recommendation to mercy being added,, and sentence was deferred until to-morrow morning. Caffery, a labourer, aged 34, was charged before Mr. Justice Smith with, having on August _2 last murdered Thomas Leavy at 119, Nelson Street. Mr. Meredith, appeared for the Crown, and Messrs. Dickson and McLiver for the prisoner. .- • The hearing of evidence and counsel's addresses concluded yesterday afternoon. The judge said he could not spend another day on the case, so the jury was brought back at half-past seven, when his Honor summed up, taking an hour. The jury was out until half-past ten, and then came in with a verdict of guilty of manslaughter with a strong recommendation to mercy, believing "that the full guilt was not Caffery J s. n

Addressing the jury Mr. Dickson reminded them that the onus of proving the charge lay on the Crown. The judge pointed out that under section 90, a person was liable for aiding and abetting. Supposing the offence was not proved against a pmon, but Zltv of aiding and .betting: Would fhat'be sufficient to establish a case? asked his Honor. ? . Mr. Dickson: That is not the Crowns case. His Honor pointed out that the evidence had to-be taken as it developed, and the position he had suggested might arise. Mr. Meredith: I was going to put that point, your Honor. Mr. Dickson: I must admit your Honor that my friend told me this morning that line was to be-taken. His Honor reiterated, that the casemust be viewed as- -the evidencedeveloped.

"Someone Else," Suggests Counsel. Counsel then proceeded to deal with the evidence in detail, and contended that there was absolutely nothing to show that Caffery stabbed Leavy. Everything pointed to "the crime having been committed by someone else, and that Byrne was indicated as the man.

Regarding the issue that Caffery aided and abetted someone else to commit the offence, Mr. Dickson contended that that was not the Crown's case at all. They alleged emphatically that Caffery had committed the crime, and then at the last moment they changed their front and said if he did not committ it he aided and , abetted someone else. There could be only one person suggested, and that was Byrne, the Crown's own witness. Though taken by surprise by that change of front, counsel was prepared to argue that there was nothing in the evidence to suggest that Caffery had aided and abetted anyone. Would it be fair for the Crown to come along with a different case like that? Counsel said that before the offence of aiding and abetting there must be before the Court some person who had committed the murder. His Honor pointed out that it was not so. It was only necessary to prove that a murder had been committed, but it left the country. Judge's Summing Op. His Honor, in the course of a very careful summing up, went minutely over STSidence that had been given durnig He past three days, and «" plained the law, pointing out the difference between murder and manslaughter. He explained that if two men went to a place with the determination of forcing an entrance at any cost they were both guilty) whichever committed the deadly act of violence. After the jury had returned at ialfpast ten with, a verdict that Caffery was gujjiy of manslaughter, and recommended him strongly to mercy, the jury believing that "the full guilt was not CafferyV His Honor deferred sentence until to-morrow morning.