Acquittal In Milk Bottle Case

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31975, 30 April 1969, Page 26

Acquittal In Milk Bottle Case

(N.Z Press Association)

AUCKLAND, April 29. A man facing charges relating to the discharge of a shotgun in suburban Freeman’s Bay on November 3 was found not guilty by an Auckland Supreme Court jury today. Joseph Maunsell. aged 51. shop assistant, was charged that on or about November 3 he discharged a firearm with intent to injure Johnson Marsh and Allan Brian McPhee: that he discharged a firearm with reckless disregard for the safety of others; and that he injured the two youths under circumstances that if death had been caused he would have been guilty of manslaughter. The trial was before Mr Justice North. Maunsell was represented by Mr P. A. Williams. Mr C. M. Nicholson appeared for the Crown. The jury of seven men and

five women deliberated for one hour before acquitting the accused of the three charges. Summing up, his Honour said the accused had been a very angry man, but the steps one could take in this situation did not extend to the iuse of firearms. If juries treated the discharge of firearms in the city lightly worse things might happen than that which occurred in Freeman’s Bay If the accused fired in the direction of a group he would be committing an unlawful act. The accused's counsel had made much of the unsavoury character of some of the prosecution witnesses. The only thing in dispute was whether the youths returned to hand the stolen milk money back, or returned in an aggressive mood. It seemed that they were going to hand it back. There was no question of self defence. The accused said be discharged the gun when 100 yards away. One of the youths was hit in the head by a pellet and required an operation. It was no good Mr Williams suggesting that the pellets came like gentle rain from heaven after losing velocity. A pellet hit Marsh sufficient!}’ hard for it to flatten out If the jury thought it was possible that the accused had discharged the gun into the air he was entitled to the doubt.

In his final address Mr ; Nicholson said it was clear • that milk money was being stolen. It was clear that this r was irritating. i It appeared that some of > the people involved were ■ hooligans. It was possible to > think that they got no more than they deserved. People could not take the: r law into their own hands. It: t was quite clear that the ac- ■ cused fired the shotgun, and that this injured the two: • youths. I Mr Williams in his final I address said there was no I evidence of direct shooting ■ at the youths. Freeman’s Bay f was an area where one might take more precaution. > The situation was that six • youngsters were drinking in i a tunnel. They had some 1 beer inside them and wanted t to show off to each other. ■ They were spoiling for trouble and if they had tnanf aged to get hold of the acI cused he might have been i badly beaten up. i The accused was a man who > cared for his responsibilities. I He was a decent citizen doing what in his mind was the - right thing to do. He took the gun with him i to give himself some author- ! ity. He had no intention of shooting these people. He . wanted to put an end to raid- , ing of milk bottles. I Mr Williams submitted that I the shot was fired over the: > heads of the youths and some ■ pellets accidentally hit two of them.