MURDER TRIAL AT NELSON

Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26396, 14 April 1951, Page 8

MURDER TRIAL AT NELSON

ACCUSED GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER PRISONER REMANDED FOR SENTENCE (New Zealand Press Association) NELSON, April 13. After a retirement of one hour and 38 minutes, the jury returned with a verdict of not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter against Charles Edward Metcalf in the Supreme Court this evening. Accused was charged with the murder of Martha Isobel Harper at 16 Beachville street Nelson, on December 2, 1950. Mr Justice Cooke remanded the prisoner for sentence. Mr W. H. Cunningham with him Mr G. H. Brodie, appeared for the Crown, and Mr W. J. Stacey represented the accused. Cross-examined this morning, Metcalf said that the signature on the statement he was alleged to have made to the police was not his. He would not have made a statement like that because there was no sense in it. Replying to a question, Metcalf said it was possible that it was a police concoction. He had no recollection of anything at the police station on the night of December 2. He did not think Mrs Harper went with other men. He had taken turns before and had struck her.

Herbert George Ainsworth, a civil servant, who gave evidence for the Crown in the Magistrate's Court, was called by the defence. He said that he once called at the accused’s house and had a scuffle with him. Metcalf had not seemed to know what he was doing. The accused became unconscious and the witness put him to bed and stayed with him. When Metcal; awoke at 4.30 a.m. next day he did not know anything about what had happened. When the witness had arrived at the house Mrs Harper had had a black eye. She had telephoned for him.

Address to Jury Addressing the jury, Mr Stacey said he could not set up a defence of insanity. Hie black-out might have occurred during an attack. The defence was one of provocation. Accused had had at least 30 long beers on December 2 up to the time he went to the police station. Would a man of accused’s mentality who had had so many drinks be able to make a lucid statement to detectives?

“I don’t sar he is not criminally responsible, but for the crime of manslaughter, not murder,” said Mr Stacey. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr Cunningham) said that the only verdicts that could be returned were murder or manslaughter. Accused had given two stories: that in his statement on the night of his arrest, and his account in Court. If the jury accepted the first statement as true, it contained an admission of Intent to kill because she had been unfaithful to him, and amounted to a confession of murder. . Z-fter the Judge’s summing up, the jury retired at 4J7 to consider its verdict.