BANK SHOOTING CASE

Evening Star, Issue 22575, 17 February 1937, Page 5

BANK SHOOTING CASE

CHARGE REDUCED TO MANSLAUGHTER

[Pee United Peess Association.]

INVERCARGILL, February 16,

After ' considering the case for over ' two hours, the grand jury returned no bill on the charge of murder against Oswald Cameron Cowie, aged 17, a bank clerk. The charge was later re- ■ duced to one of manslaughter.

The charge against Cowie arose out of the shooting tragedy on the morning of December 27, when, following a visit by four young men to the premises of the Bank of New Zealand at Invercargill, Michael Fletcher was shot and killed. The grand jury had previously returned to ask Mr Justice iKennedy’s direction on the question of reducing the major charge. His Honour replied that if there was sufficient probable evidence to justify the accused standing his trial for murder, then a true bill should be returned. If the jury was not satisfied that there was sufficient probable evidence to justify the accused standing his trial for manslaughter, the proper course for the jury was to intimate that to His Honour. If it desired to make that intimation he would direct it further. The foreman intimated that the jury wished again to retire to consider the matter. The grand jury again returned at 1 p.m., when the foreman said he wished to state that the jury found no bill on the charge of murder, and that was the only charge before it. It had no other intimation to make.

His Honour; I think I should say this, if you are of the opinion that there is not sufficient probable evidence to warrant a true bill for murder—and by your decision you apparently are of that opinion—but there is sufficient evidence to warrant a true bill for manslaughter, I shall then direct a bill of indictment charging manslaughter to be laid before the grand jury. Yon will then, if of opinion that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a true bill for manslaughter, endorse this bill “ a true bill.” '

The foreman asked if the jury could retire, and His Honour granted the request, adjourning the court for five minutes. On 'the grand jury’s return* the foreman asked for an indictment on the lesser charge, and said the jury would then consider that indictment.

His Honour told the grand jury that he would have an indictment for manslaughter prepared and placed before the 'court. The court then adjourned, and when it resumed at 2.30. the grand jury re. tired to consider the manslaughter charge. The grand jury returned at 2.45 p.m. with a true bill on the charge of manslaughter. The foreman asked' if it would be proper for the jury to add a rider.

" I think if you have any presentment to make in addition to finding the bill it should be made later,” said His Honour. “ The case has to be tried by a common jury, and it is so easy ta do something wrong at this stage.” His Honour, suggested that if the matter were, in writing he should see it. , After His Honour had read the grand jury’s note he said the observation was a very proper one. It should be Handed in in writing, and he could announce it at a later stage. The trial then proceeded, and after one witness had been heard the hearing was adjourned till to-morrow.