MURDER CHARGE

Dominion, Volume 17, Issue 288, 22 August 1923, Page 6

MURDER CHARGE

THE COLDSTREAM TRAGEDY UNEXPECTED LINE OF DEFENCE “KISSEL AN UNFORTUNATE VICTIM” The Coldstream murder trial developed in quite an unexpected manner yesterday, when counsel for the defence declared that the prisoner was an unfortunate victim and that the death of Mackenzie (tlie murdered man) was only an incident in the affair. It was further asserted that Mackenzie exercised a sinister influence over the youth, and that the relations between the two had been of a revoltins character. Bz Telegraph.— Press Association. Christchurch, August 21. A plea of not guilty was entered bv Albert Frederick Maxwell Kissel, aged 18 years, when charged in the Supreme Court to-dav with the murder of James H. Mackenzie, at Coldstream on June 12. Qhallenges ot jurymen were numerous. The Crown Prosecutor said Mackeneie undoubtedly was shot by Kissel, who might have expected financial benefit from Mackenzie’s death, as he was sole legatee under the unsignea will. Having had a night and a morning to think over the crime, Kissel’s nerve might have failed him, accounting for his confession of the crime. Evidence was given by Robert Jarves Martin, manager at Coldstream, who said that Kissel had said be was mad, and that he had previously shot a girl. Kissel was first employed on the estate in January, when he came to visit Mackenzie, and lived in his hut. Cross-examined, he said Mackenzie in his will referred to ‘‘My well-belov-ed Max Kissel,” and was always exaggerated in his praise of the youth. Witness had a boy of 10, but he had never complained of Mackenzie's conduct. ‘‘Peculiar Questions.” Allan Gourlay, a school teacher, gave evidence that Kissel som.eymeß asked him peculiar questions at meal times. On one occasion he suddenly burst into a fit of laughter, which was apparently uncontrollable. Mr.’ Acland (who appeared for accused): On the day following the tragedy did he seem absolutely distressed ? Witness: Yes. Nervy, broken up, mental state disturbed ?—“Yes, from the way he spoke.” Mr. Donnelly (Crown Prosecutor): Did you ask him what was the cause of the fit of laughter? Witness: No, I didn’t ask what tho joke was. A Horrible Dream. David Little, a farmer near Coldstream, on whose place Kissel was employed at tho time of the tragedy, said that Kissel’s conduct while he was there was quite all right. Mr. Acland: Did Kissel once tell you that he bad had a horrible dream? Witness: He said he dreamt that he was sitting crying, with a girl on each knee, and two more fighting with kn Have you seen him hysterical?— “Yes.” Was your wife frightened of him ?— “No.” Didn’t you tell him your wife was frightened and wanted him to clear ou t?—“I told him something like that.” , ~r , After he said he had killed Mackenzie did he tell you that he had seen Mackenzie’s face in the paddock or heard his voice there? —“No.” Witness also said that Kissel seemed to be particularly anxious to get away on the night before Mackenzie’s body was found. When the Body was Found. George Birch, gardener on the Coldstream estate, said that Kissel was in his company for about two hours on the dav the body was found. Kissel had a very vacant stare in Ins eyes. Counsel: Did he look dazed? Witness: Yes. What happened when he was told of Mackenzie’s death?—'‘He collapsed and screamed.” And kicked like a roadman?—“Yes. Did he seem to be acting or gon uine? —“I should say genuine.” He shod tears while ho was with you?—“Yes.” ' Real tears?—“Yes; ho must » very good actor otherwise.” Did Mackenzie say anything to you about Kissel?—“He called him his darling boy and said that..he would do more for him than for anybody else.” His praise was very exaggerated?— “Yes. J should say.so.” _ Did Mackenzie want to have Kissel taken on to the Coldstream estate?— “Yes.” . „ . ~ In what capacity?— As cowman. Defense Outlined. Air. F. E- Wilding, who appeared with Mr. Acland for the defends, said in opening his defence that it might appear that tho facts were simple, but their very simplicity suggested that there was something that had not been heard. The facts that were to be known would show that Kissel was an unfortunate victim and that, the death of Mackenzie was only an incident in the affair. The defence would set ent to show that Kissel was in a state of mind that did not render him lawfully liable for his acts, . The state ot his mind could bo arrived at only from certain facts. The facts adduced by the Crown wtere clear and accepted. He would classify the facts to show prisoner’s state of mind as follows:—Personal history, family history. story of the crime and the state of his mind before and after tho act. “Sinister Influence.” The story opened, counsel continued. when the boy, aged nine, mot Mackenzie at Lyttelton in connection with Sunday school work. Since that tunu the relations between the man and boy had been of a revolting, character. Mackenzie had used religion to obtain an influence and ascendancy over Kissel. He had been wickedly cunning. In the course of time Mackenzie induced the boy to visit Quail Island, where Mackenzie’s sinister influence did not languish. Mackenzie did not lose sight of the boy until ho was 15. when the boy, well grounded in a pernicious habit, obtained work in tho country. In tho meantime, Mackenzie wrote affectionate letters to tho boy. The habits inculcated led to a condition of subnormality, and so it was, counsel contended, that Mao-

kenzie held his sway in Kissel’s life. Then the fateful day arrived. “The whole of the facts will be put before vou,” said Mr. Wilding, “and you will have assistance of medical experts who, I may say, are the foremost in the land. After you have heard the whole of the evidence it will then be for you to say whether this boy knew right from wrong, or whether he knew what lie was doing, or whether he was entirely a victim of a state of mind bereft of moral reasoning or self-control.” Tho Question for the Jury. His Honour: “To put it plainly to the jury, that he was insane at the time. Ido not think you can go far with that. As far as our law is concerned. a man is wholly sane or insane at tho time of his offence.” The question the jury had to decide. His Honour added, was whether Kissel was insane ot not at the time of the shooting. The case was not finished when the Court rose fot ths day.