REVOLVER DRAWN

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 32, 8 February 1932, Page 10

REVOLVER DRAWN

ALLEGED SHOOTING

BROTHERS IN A STRUGGLE

YOUNG MAN ON TRIAL

Somewhat unusual features. were presented in the case of Norman Alan Millar, aged 21, which came on for trial before Mr. Justice Eeed and a jury in the Supreme Court to-day. Millar was charged on three counts, two of which were alternative charges. The major charge was that on 10th November last year he attempted to murder his brother, David Hugh Millar, in a houso in Arlington street, Wellington. Ho was also charged with (1) That with intent to do grievous bodily harm to his brother he did actual bodily harm; and (2) that he assaulted his brother so as to cause him actual bodily harm. THE CROWN'S CASE. The Crown case, as presented to the jury by the Crown Prosecutor, was that until 10th November, the date of the alleged offences, the accused lived with his married brother David Hugh Millar in a house at No. 6, Arlington street. During the afternoon of 10th November the accused had' been drinking and commenced to abuse David Millar's wife. Mrs. Millar communicated with her husband about 5.30 p.m., telling him what had happened, and he came home. The accused in the meantime had left the house and had gone away. About 8 p.m. David Millar and his wife went to bed. The accused came homo about 11 p.m., and going to his brother's bedroom door, demanded to see his brother. His brother told him to go to bed, but the accused was persistent, and finally David agreed to see the accused downstairs in the kitchen. Another brother, Eobert Millar, was in the house, and he also went into the kitchen. WOUND IN STOMACH. It was alleged, continued the Crown Prosecutor, that Norman Millar had been drinking; that he started an altercation with his brother David, and that during the struggle the accused drew a revolver and fired at his brother with the result that David Millar was wounded in the stomach. Mrs. Millar went to the Mount Cook Police station, and as she was coining back with Constable Graham she saw tho accused driving away in a motor-truck. The constable followed in a motor-car, and eventually the accused stopped the truck outside a fish and chip shop in Webb street. When accosted by the constable the accused denied having been at the house. He asked the constable if "there had been murder there" and "did he take him for Coats." The accused was persuaded to back to his brother's house. According to the constable the accused was not intoxicated, although he was excited. When the accused arrived back at the house Sergeant O'Donnell, in the presence of the accused, asked David Millar if the accused was the man who shot him. David Millar did not ans: wer, but it was alleged that his wifo said "yes." Later the accused said that the police' had got the wrong man. He was placed under arrest. FINGER-PRINT ON REVOLVER. Subsequently a search was made of the ground at the back of the fish and chips shop and a revolver was found there. A finger print impression corresponding with the accused's left forefinger was found on the revolver. When interviewed by Detective-Sergeant Eevell the accused denied all knowledge of the revolver, and said that he knew nothing about the alleged shooting. There were three live cartridges and two empty shells in the revolver. David Millar was taken to hospital, but the wound was not very serious, and he was able to leave next day. Evidence for the Crown was given by David Hugh Millar and his wife, Robert William Millar, and police officers, and this followed the lines of the Crown Prosecutor's o-pening address. "SEEMED TO BE OFF HIS HEAD." David Millar said that after the shot was fired the accused ran about' the house. He seemed to be off his head. When asked by the sergeant whether the accused was the man who had shot him, witness said he could not remember having answered, but his wife said "Yes." Ho told his brother Norman to pack his clothes up and get out of it. Replying to the Crown Prosecutor, witness said that the accused had been drinking too much that day, and, as was usual in such circumstances, he seemed to be off his head. In answer to Mr. Justice Reed, witness said he. thought h,is brother was just 21 years of age. His Honour: "Where does he o- e t his liquor?" Witness: ''That is what I would like to know."

Under cross-examination by accused's counsel, witness said that his brother had provoked him. Prior to the gun being produced he had struck the accused and knocked him down. For some minutes after the revolver was produced they were wrestling. Witness could not say whose hand it was that discharged the bullet which struck him.

The revolver with which it is alleged the shot was fired was produced, and the witness was asked to examine it. He agreed with counsel that the trigger would not cock. ,

(Proceeding.)