MAN SHOT IN HEAD

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23248, 7 February 1941, Page 10

MAN SHOT IN HEAD

JURY’S VERDICT OF MANSLAUGHTER

CHILDREN’S EVIDENCE OF DISPUTE {PRESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) HAMILTON, February 6. Not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter through his negligent handling of a firearm, was the verdict brought in by the jury against Charles Harold Longley, aged 39, an invalidity pensioner, of Manunui, charged with the murder of Jeremiah O’Sullivan on September 22, 1940, in the Supreme Court at Hamilton to-day, before Mr Justice Smith. The jury added a strong recommendation to mercy on account of his health at the time of the offence.

The prisoner was remanded for sentence.

Messrs H. T. Gillies and J. R. Fitzgerald appeared for the Crown, Longley being represented by Messrs W. J. King and D. H. Hall. Charles Ronald Longley, aged 16 years, in evidence, said he was in the kitchen with his father shortly before the tragedy. He had come in to tell his father that O’Sullivan was approaching. He remembered a conversation between O’Sullivan and his mother at the door up to tjre point where she was called a mongrel. His father, who was standing between the kitchen range and the door of the passage, went out into the passage. The next thing the witness heard was the report of a rifle. Similar evidence was given by Eunice Sylvia Longley, a sister of the previous witness. She had seen her father pick up the rifle and hurry past her.

Kathleen O’Sullivan, widow of O'Sullivan, stated that her husband was 52 years of age at the time of the tragedy, and enjoyed good health. There were three children, aged 16, eight, and six years respectively. After their original home was burned down they occupied a cottage on the Taumarunui racecourse at Manunui. A cottage that they owned, about a quarter of a mile from the racecourse, near the domain, was occupied by the Longley family, free of rent, on condition that they carried out certain repairs. Witness claimed that her husband was a kindly man and very fond of his children. This closed the case for the Crown, Defending counsel intimated that he did not intend to call witnesses. Summing Up By Crown The important question, said the Crown Prosecutor, Mr Gillies, in addressing the jury, was simply whether accused intended to shoot O’Sullivan, It was significant that there was an ominous silence by all the Longley family concerning “he event from the moment of the tragedy until the police arrived. Accused had to travel 90 yards to Mackenzie’s home, and some time elapsed before the accused said: “I never meant to do it.” It seemed a belated attempt on the part of Longley to explain what had happened. Further, the evidence showed that Longley was a very good shot. He had been out shooting blackbirds the day before. The accused picked up his rifle, pointed it, and fired past his wife to reach a bulls-eye. Mr Gillies said it was hardly a matter of importance that O’Sullivan had allegedly called Mrs Longley ‘‘a mongrel.” It would require more than that to cause a man to kill. The question of insanity had not been raised by the defence, concluded Mr Gillies, so that the accused’s actions would have to be judged in the light of those of a sane man. Intent to Kill Denied In opening his address to the jury, Mr King, the defending cciunsel, explained the grounds on which the defence was based. Longley denied all intention of doing bodily harm to O’Sullivan, and he did not know the rifle was loaded* Its discharge was purely accidental. Longley was a neurotic man, and his actions differed from those of an ordinary man.

The evidence of Senior Sergeant Kelly seemed to show that the rifle had not been cleaned before it was fired. Hence the Crown could not say that Longley know the rifle was loaded when he picked it up. There was no witness, said Mr King, who could prove that Longley aimed the rifle at O’Sullivan, nor was it likely that Longley would risk firing a shot intentionally in a narrow passage at the risk of striking his wife, a big woman, who was between O’Sullivan and himself, Under such circumstances Longley could not be convicted of murder. The jury would only have to consider the question of manslaughter, Mr King claimed. Undoubtedly there had been provocation by O’Sullivan, and it had to be remembered that Longley was a neurotic and impulsive man. The defence therefore challenged even the charge of manslaughter.