THE FLAT TRAGEDY

Evening Star, Issue 21570, 16 November 1933, Page 7

THE FLAT TRAGEDY

JAMES GUILTY OF MURDER RECOMMENDED TO MERCY DEATH SENTENCE PASSED [Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, November 15. The trial was concluded to-day before the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) of George Edward James, who had pleaded not guilty to a charge of murdering Mrs Cecilia Smith on Friday, June 80, at the flat which he had occupied with her and her little son, George Noel Smith, aged four, in Ohiro road. Prisoner was found guilty and condemned to death. At the conclusion of the cross-ex-amination of the accused a .Roman Catholic priest, Father Thomas Matthew Heffernan, said he had given James instruction in the Catholic religion. James seemed passionately fond of the boy, and Mrs Smith told him she thought James would make a good husband to her and that he would be a father to the child. Their marriage was arranged, but cancelled because, as she understood, there was a lawsuit pending. Mrs Isobel Elizabeth Williams said that, in May, James, Mrs Smith, and the boy took rooms at her boarding house in Willis street. James attended to all the household duties. His appearance altered during the time he was at the house, and he became very nervous. Chief-detective Carroll said the record that had been produced by De-tective-sergeant Jarrold was an absolutely correct account of the questions tho accused was asked at the hospital and of tho accused’s answers. Mr Leicester, in his address to the jury, contended that the evidence overwhelmingly showed that the crime James had committed was one of manslaughter. Taking the case at its best, it was that James was responsible for the woman’s death, but tnc whPs and wherefores had not in any shape or form been proved. “ This case is not a difficult one,” said the Crown Prosecutor (Mr Macassoy). “It is admitted that tho accused inflicted the injuries. The test is whether the provocation was sufficient to deprive any reasonable man of his self-control. There was nothing in the circumstances of this case to justify the accused in using a knife on the woman. If it were true that James Inst his head, would he not have stabbed Mrs Smith in various parts of the body instead of directing all his blows on the throat?” James said, Mr Macassey continued, that ho did not remember what happened afterwards, but all his actions were surely those of a man acting deliberately. They were not those of a dazed man. Tho Chief Justice, summing up, said tho evidence was consistent with the theory of tho Crown that the prisoner had decided to do away with the woman and tho boy and commit suicide himself. If the prisoncx-’s intention was as suggested by the Crown, the. fact that ho made 'an attempt to do away with himself would make the killing of the -woman none the less murder. “Mr Leicester has said,” His Honour went on, “ that if you accept tho accused’s story at its face value, then you must find a verdict of manslaughter, but that statement is by no means necessarily sound or correct. Even if you accept the accused’s evidence as true, yon still have to consider the question of provocation and decide whether it was sufficient to justify reducing tho charge from one of murder to one of manslaughter.” On their fourth return to the conn following their original retirement, the jury to-night returned a verdict of guilty of murder, with a strong recommendation to mercy. Tho Chief Justice pronounced sentence of death. James collapsed, am was carried moaning from the dock._ His Honour concluded his summing up shortly after 4.30, and the jury retired at 4.33. They returned at 5.45 ns a juryman required an answer to the question whether the defending counsel had admitted that tho accused killed the woman. The Chief Justice said it would have been idle for counsel to have said that tho woman was not killed by :ho accused. At 8.33 and 9.18 the jury stated chat they were unable to agree, but tho Chief J usticc asked them to consider tho matter further. At 10.23 the jury returned with the verdict. “ I feel bound to say,” Hi i Honour said. “ that 1 do not see how any other verdict could have been arrived at.” He discharged the members of tho jury from further attendance, and exempted them for a period of three years.