PIPIROA TRAGEDY.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17451, 11 May 1922, Page 9

PIPIROA TRAGEDY.

verdict or Manslaughter.

(PRESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) i...

AUCKLAND, May 10.

Arthur Williato Page pleaded - not guilty' iat the Supreme Court to "the murder, at Pipirou, near Thames, oil February 7th, of Gladys Hutchinson, the wife of George Hutchinson, a farmer. ' Mr V. It. Meredith, tlio Crown Prosecutor, outlined tho details of the ch&rgo. stating that Mrs Hutchinson, who nad been married for 15 years and had three children, had been living with Page. On the day of the tragedy Page received a bottle of whi.skyj and as a good deal of evidence revolved on the aisposui of this, bottle, and it would tte ' suggested that Pager was drunk at the time of the murder, Mr Meredith ■ explained how it was drunk,_ saying that several men had drunk from it, and one witness saw seven participate. It was quite clear there was sufficient left in the bottle, to do Page a great deal of harm. Evidence would also be called that Page visited the neighbourhood of tho whare about lunch time. There were a gun and cartridges there, which Page apparently took and returned to his own whare. Soon afterwards Page was observed leaving the whare, behind Mrs Hutchinson. He was carrying a gun. A witness would testifv that lie heard a scream and saw Mrs Sutchinson fall. Page then discharged- the gun into his breast and fell. Eventually neighbours and this witness surrounded Page, who, questioned why he shot the woman, said: "Oh. too much whisky." No evidence was called for. the dei Garland, for the accused, addressing the jury, said the accused never denied shooting Mrs Hutchinson, but in murdeT intention was an ingredient. Undoubtedly the accused wiis guilty of homicide, but not of culpable homicide. The Crown had suggested the motives of jealousy and . reprisal. Counsel submitted that the woman was aot returning to • her husband, but that Page was going to Thames with her. Pago's attitude was not that or a- jealous man. It was probable he shot the woman in a moment of insanity, when lie would not be. responsible • for the consequences of tho act, and in such circumstances the jury could not find him guilty of murder. His Honour, in summing up, said that the only question for the jury was whether or not the crime was one or culpable homicide, and, if so, was it such as to justify a'verdict of murder, or one of manslaughter. It was suggested bv counsel that accused was insane at the time. But ho saw no evidence whatever that would justify a verdict of not guilty on the ground of insanity. There was tho view that, although be wa ß • not drunk, accused was under the influence of liquor, and was incapable of controlling himself, and having a gun loaded, on the impulse of the moment, he used the gun. . That wis a view the jury would be quite justified in taEng. The jury deliberated for two hours and a half, and returned a verdict of ! manslaughter. Sentence "was deferred .till this [morula's. ' 1