BANK SHOOTING CASE

Evening Star, Issue 22576, 18 February 1937, Page 17

BANK SHOOTING CASE

COWIE ACQUITTED

JURY'S RIDER OH MINORS AS GUARDIANS

[Per United Press Association.]

INVERCARGILL, February 17. A verdict of not guilty was returned by the jury this afternoon in the case in which Oswald Cameron Cowie, _ a bank clerk, aged 17, was charged with manslaughter, and the accused was discharged. Tho charge arose out of the shooting tragedy on the morning of December 7, when, following a visit by Tangi Kitson, William Martin Robertson, Michael Fletcher and William Thomas M’Quarrie, four young men, to the premises of the Bank of New Zealand at Invercargill, Fletcher was shot and killed.

In his address to the jury the Crown Prosecutor asked; Did the accused fire the shot which caused Fletcher’s death? If the jury was not satisfied he did. then that was an end to the case. If it was satisfied he did, however, then it would consider whether anything justified or excused his firing the shot. If his conduct was excusable, then the accused should be acquitted, but if there was no excuse, then, patting sentiment aside, it was the jury’s duty to find a verdict of guilty. The position was that the accused said he did fire the shot that killed Fletcher and had sworn on oath that he fired _ tho shot. In these circumstances the jury must find their answer to that question in the affirmative. On matters of justification or excuse there was no question of accident. The accused tired tho shot and said he fired it at Fletcher. In the second place, there was no question of self-defence. Fletcher was. not threatening tho accused, but was tlying, to get out of the door. “ It can only be characterised as an act of insensate folly,” said the Crown Prosecutor, who drew attention to the difference between the statement mad© to tho police by tho accused and his evidence in the lower court.

For the defence, Mr A. C. Hanlon, who called no evidence, said he would ask the jury whether _it had been proved to its entire satisfaction that the accused fired the fatal shot. Although the Crown Prosecutor had challenged the veracity of tho accused’s statements, counsel put it to the jury that the accused statement to the police was not necessarily conclusive. The position the jury was in was to find whether the evidence proved that the accused fired the fatal shot, not as to what he had said in his statement or in his evidence in the lower court. Someone else might have fired the fatal shot, counsel suggested. Wyatt, in the ambulance, had said repeatedly that he did not want the accused to lose his job and admitted that “ he did it.” What did that mean? Could Wyatt, if he were in the dock, be convicted on his admission? Then, should the accused, because of his admission, bo convicted None of the witnesses had sworn that the accused fired the shot or saw him fire it. Was the accused, and tho accused only guilty of the offence? “ At the hank we are told there wari just a friendly argument. Yet one of the men took off his coat and punched Wyatt on the jaw,” said Mr Hanlon. “ The evidence showed that Wyatt was badly knocked about. The _ four men who visited the bank were in a mood to be cantankerous, and .would not leave when asked to go by Wyatt. “ Tho accused knew that one of the men had got hold of a revolver and cartridges, and was really frightened as to what would happen. That was probably tho reason why he went and got Wyatt’s revolver and put it in his pocket for protection. Mr Hanlon commented on the leaving of mere youths in charge of a bank, armed with revolvers. What were revolvers given to them for? he asked. Were they to protect the bank property or themselves? There must be something wrong, he said, when two_ youths were given revolvers with no instructions in their use. Such a practice ought to be stopped. What had it led up to? That terrible tragedy. Summing up, his Honour said the sole question the jury must determine was whether the accused killed a human being by an unlawful act. _ If ho shot the deceased, was the shooting in the circumstances unlawful? Generally speaking, it was an unlawful thing for any person to discharge a revolver at another. It was very important that liberty should not be interfered with, but in the view of the law it was equally important that human beings should not be wrongfully deprived of life, and the law allowed it only in exceptional cases. Was there any attack at the final stag© upon ■\Vyatt? Was force used to prevent an attack upon him? There was no one in contact with him, no threats had been made, and tho revolver had not been produced or used. Finally, fear did not make an act committed under its influence lawful if it was otherwise. The issue was: Had it been found that the accused shot the deceased, and was the shooting an unlawful act? The jury retired at 4.20 p.m. and returned at 5.12 with a verdict of not guilty. . After discharging Cowie, his Honour read a presentment made by the grand jury. It stated: “ That this grand jury reconimmends that no minor should be left as the guardian of a building with access to firearms.’’