MANSLAUGHTER VERDICT IN GLENSIDE SHOOTING

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27963, 9 May 1956, Page 7

MANSLAUGHTER VERDICT IN GLENSIDE SHOOTING

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON. May 8. [ After a retirement of 30 minutes this afternoon, the jury found Herbert Edward Dorset, aged 39. a clerk, guilty of the manslaughter of George Grandison at Glenside. near Johnsonville, on January 12. Dorset was charged with the murder of Grandison. The jury added a strong recommendation to mercy. on the grounds that the accused did not intend to kill Grandison and had acted under extreme provocation. Mr W. E. Leicester, who. with Mr iV. N. Sheat. appeared for the accused. called brief evidence for the iefence. Thomas Graham Blair, a hotel employee, gave evidence of visits by Mrs Dorset to Grandison's room at Porirua Hospital, where he was engaged as an orderly. He also told of a visit Grandison and Mrs Dorset paid to Nelson, where they shared a double bedroom in a hotel. Details of the trip made to Sydney by Mrs Dorset and Grandison were

given by Robert Taylor, a shipping clerk, who said that the couple reserved adjacent cabins in the Wanganella. The accused had later called at the shipping office, and seemed shocked when he found that Grandison had travelled with Mrs Dorset. Peter Alexander McLean, custodian of the Te Aro Baths, said that the accused was an all-the-year swimmer. He had known him for some 20 years, and noticed the deterioration in his health and disposition after the trouble with his wife and Grandison. In his final address to the jury, Mr Leicester referred to what he termed the despicable planning by Grandison behind the accused’s back to take his wife away from him and the mother away from his children. Mr Leicester said that the sudden realisation would come to the accused that he must do something to prevent

the breaking up of his home. Counsel said that the accused had pleaded with his wife and Grandison without avail, and he then made his frenzied attempt to obtain outside assistance by stopping the passing motorist. “What was in his poor, troubled mind when he stopped Standish?” asked Mr Leicester. The accused had shown no forethought or design against Grandison. He had wanted only to wound him to stop him taking Mrs Dorset away. “It was a praiseworthy act, and not murder,” said counsel. Counsel referred to incidents immediately .before the shooting. “When Grandison moved off in the van with Mrs Dorset, it was the match which set alight all the smouldering humiliation that this man had to put up with,” he said. “He had a father’s desire to shield his children from greater trouble. “This man is no criminal, as may be judged from the simplicity of his words and actions after the shooting. The placing of the revolver on the shelf in the china cabinet was not the hallmark of a criminal mind. I ask you by your verdict to restore the present shattered remnants of this man’s life.” Sir William Cunningham, who. with Mr C. N. Irvine, appeared for the Crown, explained to the jury the I law of culpable homicide. “Did the

accused mean to kill Grandison. or did he intend to cause him actual bodily harm?” asked Sir \A illiam Cunningham. He said that every person was presumed to intend the result of his own act. When the accused had gone to the house to get the children and bring them down to the car he had picked up the loaded rifle and pistol. “You have heard much about the iniquity of Grandison. but Dorset s wife was not happy after her return from Australia. The whole situation was just as much a trial to Mrs Dorset as to her husband.” said Sir William Cunningham. “There is no licence for a man to shoot another who has got friendly with his wife and wants to take her away.” Mr Justice Gresson addressed the jury on the question of law. saying that the facts were for their consideration only. •Did the accused kill Grandison. he asked. “If so. was it murder, or was it only manslaughter, or was it

no crime at all?” His Honour said that the defence of provocation merited the closest c p n " sideration. “You must be satisfied that a reasonable person, in consequence of the provocation received, might be led to use violence with fatal results,” he said. The jury should remember that the accused had had an anxious time for months. The accused was remanded in custody for sentence.