ACQUITTED. CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER.

Evening Post, Volume LXXV, Issue 32, 7 February 1908, Page 3

ACQUITTED. CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER.

THE CHARGE AGAINST SHERIDAN. Tho trial of James Malachi Sheridan for the manslaughter of John Wm. M'Nally was concluded at the Supremo Court yesterday, and resulted in a verdict of acquittal. The following evidence for the defence was given after The Post went to press :—: — Archibald A. Brown stated that on 3rd January, a little before 1 p.m., he saw a man lying on his back at the torner of Grey and Featherston-streets. Sheridan was with him and picked him up, and they went as if towards Lamb-ton-quay. ACCUSED'S EVIDENCE. Accused also gave evidence. He had, he said, known M'Nally for about three years. He described how he met M'Nally about 10.30 on the morning of 3rd January, outside tli3 Duke of Edinburgh. M'Nally said he had neon on a spree, and was bad for w-ant of a drink. Then ne asked him (accus°d) to pawn his watch, as ha felt too shaln . Witness pawned the watch for £1, which hs gave to deceased. They had a drink at the Empire Hotel, and then went to the Post Office Hotel, with t^o other men, Dinnie and Tuckwell, and bad another drink there. M'Nally then wunt away to get his wages, but later be saw him in the bar with some one vise. He gave two men ss, saying that would keep them quiet till he came back. M'Nally walked away, and witness went across the road. Later be saw him in the Post Office Hotel, and tried to get him away from some men who wero "sponging*' on him. M'Nally. gave another man ss, and witness went away. As he walked across the road he saw M'Nally fall as he left the hotel; and vritness brushed him and took him away. A little further on M'Nally feJ] again. He refused to get into a cab', so witness took him into a vacant section. M'Nally wanted to go back and look for the men to whom he had given the money. Witness restrained him, and in tho process M'Nally struck, him twice on the face. Witness got up, intending to lcavV him, as ho had had enough of him. Ho heard M'Nally say, "You !" but until then he did not know that the man was following Witness turned Tound quickly. M'Nally ■was in the act of delivering a blow. Witness put out his arm to ward off the blow wiui his right hand, the bone of which was broken, and as M'Nally had got closer the haiid struck him. He did not intend to strike him, merely toward off a blow. He never told Constable Clay that he lost his temper and struck M'Nally with his open hand. He made no statement at all to Constable Clay. Cross-examined : He had li»ar drinks on that morning. He considered that he was sober. M'Nally had been drinking ,he was i>he worse for liquor. He did not know which part of M'Nally he hit when M'Nally came after him." He felt pained that M'Nally should have tried to strike him, and therefore he wanted to get away. Why didn't you hurry and "get away? —If I had had time I ifhould have done so, but he was on me with, his blowready. He did not use any such words as Rickards said he did. He knew his fist was not clenched, because if he had closed it it would nave been broken. This closed ihe case for the Crown. Counsel "did not address the jury. THE JUDGE'S REMARKS. ■ In summing up the case, his Honour said ths jury would nob find the rii?. oner guilty of manslaughter, if they found that he was doing what any man might be fairly expected, to do on the spur of the moment to meet the contingencies which he might have had to meet. In some cases, too, it was not easy to distinguish between a blow and a warding-off or a counter-stroke to meet a coming blow. A counter-blow was not an assault, and if the recipient of the counter-stroke died that would noh be manslaughter. It was for the jury to decide what class of blow it was that was struck. His Honour also pointed out that loss of temper under trying circumstances did not make the striking of a blow unjustifiable in the sense that ifc was vindictive. The jury had a!so to consider the question of whether the man was killed as the result of a blo<\, or whether he had injured himself by one of the two falls 4 he got previously JURY'S VERDICT. The jury, after half an hour's retirement, returned with a verdict of "Not Guilty," and accused was discharjj.l.