DA SERIOUS CHARGE. JAMES SHERIDAN'S CASE.

Evening Post, Volume LXXV, Issue 31, 6 February 1908, Page 8

DA SERIOUS CHARGE. JAMES SHERIDAN'S CASE.

i SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS. In the Supreme Court to-day, before his Hoijoui' Mr. Justice Chapman, James Malachy Sheridan was arraigned on an indictment charging him with the manslaughter of John M'Nally, at Wellington, on 3rd January, 1903. Accused, who was defended by Mr. Gray, pleaded not guilly. The following jury were empanelled to try the case : — Messrs. Hy. Wardell (foreman), Jas. Simm, Thomas Orchard, Benjamin W. Wade, Arthur E. Wright. Jas. Griffiths, Barnard C. Kane, Percy Coker, James Liddle, Frank H*. Panting, Alexander Stephenson, and Fredk. 11. Irwin. COUNSEL'S STATEMENTS. In opening the case, the chief features of which have already been fully reported, the Crown Prosecutor (Mr. M. Myers) said the jury would start out with the assumption that M'Nally was killed without any intention on the pa>-t of accused to kill him — if he did kill him. It would bo proved that prisonrr did strike M'Nally a blow, and they would have to consider whether he was justified in so doing. It he was not justified, and if they found that as a result M'Nally met his death, it would be their duty to find the prisoner guilty of manslaughter. Further, if M'Nally was unable to look after himself, and that fact was known to prisoner, and that prisoner was able to look after himself, and that M'Nally struck prisoner and prisoner was able to get away, then in thai case it wonld bo their .duty to find a verdict of guilty. In every case involving loss of life, it was very necessary that all the circumstances should be carefully enquired into, and that loss of life should not go unpunished where the circumstances warranted such t% course. The case for tho Crown, continued counsel, was that prisoner ought never to have delivered the blow at all •, that the blow was unlawful -and unjustifiable. In the alternative, what the Crown said was that M'Nally was drunk and unable to look after himself ; that accused knew of the relative positions oi himself and M'Nally, and that when accused saw that trouble was imminent, he should hays got away instead of delivering a blow at M'Nally, which blow appeared, from the words which accompanied it, to have been delivered in artier. The evidence was,' generally speaking, on the same lines as that given at the inquest, and at the investigation in tho lower court. MEDICAL EVIDENCE. Dr. Fyffe, who made a post mortem examination of the body, said the cause of death was hemorrhage of the substance of the base of the brain, due to £ blow or fall when the vessels were probably congested by alcoholic excess. A blow from a fist, in addition to a fall, would be sufficient to cause death. In answer to Mr. Gray, witness said that when the vessels of the brain were congested the person was more liable to receive injury than when he was in an ordinary condition. Theie was no mark on the face or scalp. If the person died suddenly he would not expect to find a mark. Judging from tho amount of hemorrhage death must have been almost instantaneous. If ho had had a violent fall an hour before his death, striking his head on the ground, that would cause injury, and render him more liable to the effect of a comparatively light blow later on If he •had fallen on to a stone step threequarters of an hour before, and struck the back of his head, that would help to cause the presence of the symptoms discovered, and render him more susceptible to further injury. .Re-examined, witness said that in that case he would expect to find the parts bruised ; sometimes there were no bruises, but it was more piobablo there would be bruises. He found none. Dr. Henry agreed with the previous witness as to what was found at tho post mortem examination, and generally supported the other evidence given by Dr. Fyffe. It was possible, he added, that death could have been caused by a previous fall, half an hour or even longer, and then take place suddenly. In answer to Mr. Myers, however, he said that the post mortem appearances were more consistent with the injury that caused death having been inlhcted just before death. OTHER WITNESSES. Evidence was also given of M'Xally having been paid 37s at the Harbour Board offices at noon on the day of his death ; of the fact that ho left home the previous evening quite well and sober, and did not return again ; and that the prisoner pawned deceased's watch :>nd chain about 10 o'clock on the morning of the affair, and, as was admitted, at M'N ally's request. Jas. A. Rickard, a workman who was on a building near where the affair occurred, stated that he saw Sheridan and M'Nally sitting down on a vacant piece of land in Grey-street, about 1.15 ; they remained there for about a, quarter of an hour. M'Kally was drunk, and he should say accused was half drunk. They were quietly talking, and then M'Nally tried to get up, but was pulled back by Sheridan. A struggle took place, bheridan holding M'Nally down, and kneeling down wun a leg on each side of M'N ally's body. Then M'Nally got ono arm free, and struck Sheridan on the face. Accused then got up, and made as though to go away. M'Nally, also got up, and vent towards accused as if to strike him. Ho did not do so, but accused turned round, and struck M'Nally with his closed fist, paying: "Take that, you ." M'Nally fell, and only moved one arm slightly, and then lay still. Witness said to accused : "You've settled him," and accused said, "Oh, no, I've not; he'll be all. right." "This (pointing to a wound on his face) is what you get for your kindness. He's a good little bloke ; don't get drunk once in four years. I brought him in here to keep him from giving his money to other men." Just aiieiwards he found that M'Nally was uead. A constable arrived, and accused ran away. He should say that accused knew what he was doing. It was possible for Sheridan to have got away without coming into conflict with M'Nally, but he would have had to walk fast or run. In answer to Mr. Gray, witness "said that accused struck M'Nally with his right hand ; his fist appeared to be closed. Mr. Gray ; Look at accused's right hand. Witness did so, and it was then seen that the hand could not be closed quite tight, owing t'i its having been broken at one time. Thomas Pearce, foreman to Messrs. Trevor and Son, and Constable Clay also gave evidence At this stage Mr. Gray asked his Honour whether he did not think this was a case in which he should direct the jury to bung in a verdict of not guilty. His Honour said he thought it was a case that he ought to put to the juiy, and to take their verdict. When tho r.ouit resumed this- nfternoon Sergeant Kelly stated that when accused was charged at tho police station he said : "I never struck him that

I remembor. I was only trying to hold him." He added thai he and deceased had been drinking, and that he took deceased away from other company so that he would not give all his money away. This closed the case for the Crown. THE DEFENCE. Addressing the jury for the defence, Mr. Gray said ho thought the jury must have been convinced that this unfortunate affair was accidental. He would call the accused to give his statement of what happened, and it would be shown that before the two men got to Greystieet M'Nally f ell twice heavily. Coun-f-el suggested that those falls might have set up such a condition as assisted in causing his death. As to tho blow that accused struck, he asked what would any one el&e have done tinder similar circumstances. Would they not have given the man a smack to yarn him from going any further? The whole of Ills* subsequent conduct showed that he had no desire to use undue force, arid that he had no idea of the consequences of the blow. (Left hitting.)