COURT OF APPEAL.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 498, 4 May 1909, Page 2

COURT OF APPEAL.

AUCKLAND SHOOTING CASE. ar. WHEN INSOBRIETY EXCUSES CRIME, tii Upon tho sittings of tho Court of Appeal being resumed yesterday, three reserved judgments were delivorcd, the first being that »j, in tho case of the King versus Robt. Garr, ; which had been reserved by Mr. Justice n( Cooper. „, Garr was tried at Auckland in February, f upon an indictment' charging him, in the , first count, with attempting to murder James ■ Mewett, and, in the second count,' with "J wounding and doing actual bodily harm to •" Mewett with intent to. maim, disfigure/ dis- . able, and do grievous bodily harm to him. ™. On November '&, whilst under'tho influence °j of drink, aud while on Hoard the s.s. Naumai w as a passenger, Garr discharged a loaded P 1 pistol at Mewett, tho captain, and , wounded "' him in the back. Tho defence set up was that Garr was so intoxicated as to ho un- j a aware of what ho was doing, and incapable K of forming any intent. Mr. Justico Edwards ± directed .the jury that, in order to justify "' them in finding Garr guilty upon either of P , tho counts, they must be satisfied that tho M I intent as charged'had been proved, but that ti i intent was usually inferred from acts j that a: intoxication was no defence to a criminal w charge unless it deprived tho person charged » of consciousness or the nature of his. acts, a and rendered him incapable of forming a a criminal intent;. and that, if they thought o that Garr was lncapablo of forming such an t] intent, they might still find him guilty of b causing actual bodily harm'under such cir- a cumstances that; if death had been caused, t he would have been guilty of manslaughter, a Tho jury found Garr not guilty of- tflio crimes c charged in the indictment,, but guilty of t causing actual bodily harm under such cir- I cumstances that, if death had been caused, C he would have been guilty of manslaughter, p and, further, that,Garr was' at tho time in- h capable of. forming an intent. : The question I to bo decided by the Court of Appeal was, whother the direction to the jury was right g or wrong. ■■' - ■ ' ! : ■ • ; : ■ ■•' The Court held that the test was this: s If Mewett' had died,-and Garr had been in- I dieted for murder, could the jury (if they c found that,he was incapable through drink of forming an intent) have properly convicted him of manslaughter? It was their opinion that the jury could. When a man, by his own voluntary act, got drunk, and r while . so drunk, killed a person under circumstances which justified a jury in finding that the drunken man was incapable of forming_ the . intention which was! necessary to constitute the crime of murder, he was , nevertheless I guilty of culpablo, homicide which,, though not murder, was nejrertheless_ manslaughter. ' In tho present , case it was quite open to tho > jury to have cpnvicted_ Garr of tho ■ full , offence stated in the indictmeiit. ' Tho eyidenco, was that Garr, although.under the influence, of liquor,-was capable ; of : moving j about and entering into altercation with the •] paasengers, and that ho was fighting with s another man. Upon the captain. separating 4 them, Garr , drew ■ a pistol and , fired at 1 him. The jury took a lenient view of- Garr's i conduct, .and, having negatived'.tho-intent; . neceseary to constitute proof of . the full. ] offences, followed, tho second branch of his' ; Honour's direction. :Thp precise point that i that part was right had, just beonidecided by j the Court of Crimiiial Appeal in England. In that case ihe prisoner, was oharged with ] murder. The judge thus directed the jury:— ■; "Everyone is presumed to know the, "con-. ' sequonces of his acts. If he be insane, that '. knowledge is not presumed. Insanity is.not ' pleadeil nero, but where itlis'.part of,' the ' essence of a.crime that , a motivp shall exist, tho law declares -this: that if the mind at ! that time is so obscured by drink, if the i reason is-dethroned:and the man incapable , ! therefore of forming that, intent, it justifies the reduction of the .charge to manslaughter." The Court of Criminal Appeal;held that this direction ..was right -in law; and did not infringe: tho ruin which had been established by modern authority, and which the Court declared to'bo as .follows:—"A man is taken . to intend_ the natural consequences of his' acts.'. , . This-- p'resumptiOii^may■ be 'rebutted: . '(1) In ; of/a , sober man> in ;, many ■ \rays; (2) it may also bofrebutted in vhp case of.a man who is■■drunk,>by.showing his mind to, have beoii:so''affected'by"tbe drink, he "had taken that : he was incapahle of know-; ! ing tliat what, he was doing .was dangerous. . If this be, proved, the presumption that he intended to do grievous bodily harm" is rebutted." It was the opinion of the : Court that it was competent for the jury to convict Garr of tho minor offence, atfd the conviction must be affirmed.' . ■..■•'■ ;-... ~:.,.