MANSLAUGHTER

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 108, 10 May 1933, Page 15

MANSLAUGHTER

PAPATOETOE CASE

VERDICT AGAINST CLARK

(By Telegraph.—Press Association.) AUCKLAND, May 9. A verdict of manslaughter was returned against Thomas Francis Clark, charged with, the murder of Bertha May Bennett at Papatoetoe on January 17. Counsel for the accused made a strong pica to the jury to regard the act as one of provocation. His Honour, Mr. Justice Smith, in his summing up, reviewed the grounds upon which provocation -could be successfully pleaded. Addressing the jury, counsel for the accused (Mr. E. H. Northcroft) said that it was laid down by law that culpable homicide could be reduced to manslaughter if the person who caused the death did so in a fit of sudden passion caused by provocation. Accordingly, in the present -case there was no murder. The accused saw his intended wife sleeping in thqarms of his best friend. That would be sufficient act or insult to cause him to lose self-control. "If you take a proper view of the facts I. most earnestly suggest there are throe courses open to you—to find accused guilty of murder as the Crown asks you to, to find him guilty of manslaughter on the grounds that there was provocation, or to find that ho had no intention of shooting at all, and that the fuel added to fire by the words of the woman so affected him that he did not know what happened with the exception that lie admits that he had the gun in his hands. Mr. Hubble, for the Crown, said that the facts of the case were simple. The accused's statement was a full confession. He sought to vary it slightly from, the witness-box. He had the strongest possible motive for wishing to alter it, but the statement remained as a lucid account which, fitted the facts brought out in the evidence. As to provocation, it was not present in that sudden degree to warrant the reduction from culpable- homicide to manslaughter. His Honour said that there could be no defence of insanity. In the statement the accused expressed his intention to shoot Mrs. Bennett. In evidence he had explained it as a joke. It was for the jury to say whether the explanation should bo accepted. Provocation, by law, had to be a wrongful act or insult. If the jury found that there was a contract to marry it would be justified in saying that there had been a wrongful act against the accused. It had to be proved that a wrongful act suffered t>y the accused was sufficient to rob any ordinary man of self-control before murder could be reduced to manslaughter. The jury returned after an hour and 20 minutes with a verdict of manslaughter. The accused was remanded for sentence.