JURY STOPS TRIAL.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 125, 28 May 1932, Page 3 (Supplement)

JURY STOPS TRIAL.

CHARGE OF MURDER

ACCUSED FATHER ACQUITTED

"PURE SPECULATION" SAYS JUDGE.

The case at the Old Bailey, in which it was alleged that a Gediiey Marsh (Lincolnshire) farmer murdered his son, and in which the defence had suggested that the gun was discharged by being knocked over by the dead man's dog, a ring on its collar becoming entangled in the trigger, ended dramatically. After Dir Bernard Spilsbury had given evidence Mr. .Justice Swift said the whole matter was "ghastly speculation," and he should tell the jury they could never convict.

The jury stopped the case, and unanimously found the man —George Kitchen— not guilty. He was then discharged. Kitchen went into the corridors outside the Court, and one ot his first acts was to light his pipe.

In .1 talk with a newspaper man he said: "Of course, 1 am glad to be free again. I shall take a rest before I do

anything else. It is a great shock to lose my boy, and I have been locked up for 13 weeks. I never once lost faith during the whole proceedings. I have been confident of the result all the way through."

During the hearing of the case, Prince, the three-year-old retriever, was again at the Old Bailey, chained in the large hall. An experiment was made at the request of Mr. Thorp, K.C. (Kitchen's counsel) to see if the end of the dog's collar would pass through the triggers. A constable eaid that the collar end passed between the triggers with a little forcing. Mr. Thorp: Did you put 981b of weight on it when you forced it through?— No. Mr. Thorp: Well, that is the weight of the dog. Case Collapses. After Sir Bernard Spilsbury had given evidence as to the wound being downwards and forward, the judge said: After, all, this case is all assumption. Is there any material upon which we can really draw a sound theory as to what happened?

Sir Bernard: The only material is that which shows the distance at which the weapon was discharged from the body, and the material which shows the direction in which the weapon waa pointed in relationship to the body. The absence of scorching on the clothing indicated that the weapon was fired not less than three feet away.

The Judge: It is a ghastly speculation, isn't it, the whole thing?

Sir Bernard: There is nothing exact. It entirely turns on the position of the body at the time the man received the wound.

The Judge: It is pure speculation as to how thie man died?— Put in that way, my lord, it is.

Mr. Justice Swift, addressing the jury, said that they could never convict Kitchen of wilful murder. It had been clearly shown by the dead man's brother that George Kitchen had put the gun against the wall and then gone about his ordinary occupation. James Kitchen came out with his spade and hie dog, and, within two or three feet of the gun, proceeded to clean his spade, standing in rubber boots, which were well worn, on a greasy brick pavement. "Suddenly," the judge continued, "the gun goes off, and he ie killed. The prosecution suggests his father killed him. Can you draw that inference? To my mind it is absolutely impossible, and, Sir Bernard Spilebury, to whom we all look for great assistance in these cases, says that nobody can tell what happened. Then, how can you possibly say thiil" man is guilty of murder?" The jury considered, and after a few minutes the foreman said: "It is the unanimous wieh of the jury that the case should not go on. and we find the prisoner no"; guilty." Kitchen was then discharged. Mr. Thorp applied for costs of three witnesses for the defence, who, he said, would have been called to show that it was possible for a gun to be discharged by being knocked over by a dog. This evidence was not considered admissable by the justices. ' Mr. Justice Swift said that it was admissable. and tlicpo witness should have thair costs both before the justices and before him.