Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.


The case of Regina v. Looney, argued in the Court of Appeal yesterday afternoon, was the Feilding sho sting case in which Thoraaa Looney and Annie Looney were charged under section 177 of the Criminal Code with having wounded Dr Charlton at Feilding with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. The female prisoner had fired eight shots with a revolver in the Feilding streets, the-male prisoner having provided her with the weapon and ammunition, and, being present, encouraged her. The Chief Justice directed the jury that if they thought what was done was done recklessly and in a spirit of general bravado, but without the intention of wounding Dr Charlton or any person, and acquitted prisoners on that account, they might if they took that view of the facts convict of wounding simply, that being an offence under section 186 of the Criminal Code. The jury found the prisoners guilty of wounding without intent. The Chief Justice reserved for consideration of the Court of Appeal the question whether the direction wa3 right, and whether conviction of an offence under section 186 could besustainod. This section makes it an offeuco to do actual bodily harm to any person under such circumstances that if death had been caused it would have been manslaughter. The question involved was whether the offence of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm included the lesser offence of wounding recklessly under circumstances which would have made it manslaughter if death had ensued. It was contended for the Crown that 'the wounding charged in the indictment must mean unlawful wounding with intent; that an offence under section 186 might be described as un- ] lawful wounding though without intent, and that therefore the offence under section 186 was included as a minor offence in the indictment, and that the jury had sufficiently and properly convicted of such an offence. The Court, however, held unanimously that there was so much doubt whether the indictment sufficiently covered the offence under section 186 that the prisoners ought to have the benefit of the doubt, and they directed a verdict of not guilty to be entered.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

Bibliographic details

THE FEILDING SHOOTING CASE., Evening Star, Issue 10466, 9 November 1897

Word Count

THE FEILDING SHOOTING CASE. Evening Star, Issue 10466, 9 November 1897