MANSLAUGHTER TRIAL.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17451, 11 May 1922, Page 4

MANSLAUGHTER TRIAL.

, ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED.

The trial of Thaddeus Edward Doody, of Rangiora, on a charge of manslaughter, in that he did unlawfully kill one John Joseph O'Neill at Rangiora on March 27th,' 1922, was held at the Supreme Court yesterday before his Honour Mr Justice Chapman and a jury of twelve.

Mr A. T." Donnelly, Crown Prosecutor, conducted the prosecution, and Mr M. J. Gresson,. with him Mr H. C. D. van Asch, appeared- for the prisoner. The Crown' Prosecutor reviewed the incidents which had led up to the death of O'Neill. Witnesses, he said, would be brought who would say that Doody struct O'Neill, who fell on the footpath, and died the same night. jJoody's account was to the effect that while fighting with Cornelius O'Neill, John Joseph O'Neill attacked himfrom behind, puttiug his arm around his neck and prisoner. had struck him in order to get free. The jury had to decide whether or not thought the prisoner unjustifiably struck the deceased man either in the course of a fight or in an unwarranted assault. In the latter case the prisoner would be guilty of the crime. If the jury thought that a fair construction of the circumstances showed that the blow, or the fall of the deceased on the footpath, was accidental, the accused would be entitled to be acquitted. Dr. Will, of Rangiora, and Dr. T. B. Davis, acting-house surgeon at the ■Christchurch Hospital, gave :form(il medical evidence, and Dr. A. B; Pearson, who made the post-mortem examination, described the injuries to the head of the deceased.

Cornelius labourer at Rangiora, and brother of the deceased, said that at about 6.15 p.m. on March 27th he was in the right-of-way of the Junction Hotel. Witness had had a good number of drinks. There was an argument and a tussle between Doody and witness, and the latter's brother intervened. Doody "shoved his brother off,'*'and the latter went down.: ... To Mr .Gresson: Witness, did not remember the cause of Uis argument ;with : Doody.: Witness thought that his brother came between them, and that Doody pushed him away. Witness did not think that he might liave pushed his brother himself.

William Watson, labourer, residing at Rangiora, who was with the men outside the Junction Hotel, 6aid ■ that in the right-of-wav'there was a "bit of a rough-and-tumbie" between C. O'Neill and Doody. Jack O'Neill waa at the back of Doody. The next', witness saw was Jack O'Neill: on the ground; he fell very heavily, for witness heard the sound of the fall on the asphalt. Percy James. Pulley: farmer at Loburn, who . was with the other men, said that, Jack OVNeill 1 approached Doody from behind to pull him. oft'. Doody swung right round, and either hit O'Neill or shoved him,. The fight stopped shortly after Jack O'Neill fell., To Mr .Gresson: There was no suggestion. of a quarrel .between Doodv and Jack ; O'Neill. ' ;

Martin Carney, labourer, residing at Rangiora, <• also gave evidence as to the the O'Neills and Doody»were the worse for drink.; ; "

Con|tabfe-r J. Robertson, of Rangior a>' gave evidence as to finding Jrck O'Neill ■on,'-the ground. The prisoner "appeared and 1 said "How is it? I hit him. It was me, that hit him." Prisoner assisted witness to take accused to the police station. ' O'Neill sat on a chair and appeared to talk quite ratiorially. Next morning, after, the death of, O'Neill, witness arrested prisoner., j To Mr Gresson: While at the;police [station P'Neill said that he d : 'l, riofewish to make a charge against Dpody. |. He also said that , there was nothing 'wrong.

Mr Gresson asked his Honour to rule whether there was a case to go before a jury. One version was that O'Neill ( put his,arm .around Doody, in which case.Doody might, have been justified in protecting himself from nttack. Another', version was that O'Neill, stepped between tho. men and was accidentally struck:,. / 1 His Honour: "I shall ,tell the jury that; O'Neill was justified in'interfering to protect his brother." The'jury "would decide whether there was:a case against the accused. No evidence was called for the defence. • .Mr-Gresson, in his address to the jury, said that the deceased had reallv '"butted into" the fight. He asked if Doody "was riot justified in pushing away the man who caught him around the neck. Doody did not wish to fight both the O'Neills.' There was no bad blood between Doody and'thfe decensed. Counsel said that he had never ..had a case in which he had to do so little crossI examining or putting the prisoner's case before the jury, because the Crown's case was the prisoner's case. His Honour said that the question for' the jury -was whether the death of the man was due to an accident, or an unlawful' act. The Crown had to establish that the blow was the 'result of an unlawful act. The jury, knew the circumstances, • which were sufficiently disgraceful—a number of men Engaging in an argument, the subject of which was forgotten'. Apparently there had been fto bad feeling between the accused and the "deceased. If the accused arid the other O'Neill went into the right-of-way to fight, then they went there for an unlawful, purpose. If in the fight one knocked the other down and killed him, that was manslaughter. That was not what happened in this case. O'Neill had intervened. If he had intervened to prevent a breach of the peace, that was a lawful act. Prisoner had been candid enough in his confession to the police. The whole question was, did the ■ jury find that the-prisoner committed a,ri unjustifiable assault or was the mail knocked .down by a blow which' under the circumstances was not an. unlawful act? ; The. jury at 11.59 a.m.., and returned- in twnlvo minutes with a verdict of not guilty. The prisoner was discharged.