SENTRY BOX TRAGEDY

Evening Star, Issue 25172, 11 May 1944, Page 3

SENTRY BOX TRAGEDY

KILLING OF U.S. SERVICEMAN BEAGLE ACQUITTED (P.A.) AUCKLAND, May 10. In the Supreme Court to-day a New Zealand soldier, Thomas Rex Beagle, aged 19. was found not guilty of having murdered an American serviceman on March 3. Tho trial was commenced on Monday morning and evidence was given by 21 witnesses for the Crown. It was alleged that the accused shot the deceased with a rifle in a sentry box at the military camp at Papakura. '

The case was heard before Mr Justica Pair. Mr V. 1 R. Meredith and Mr Williams appeared for the Crown, and Mr A. H. Tompkins, of Hamilton, and Mr G. H Wallace for tlie defence. At the conclusion of the Crown's case Mr Tompkins said he did not propose to call evidence for the defence.

Mr Meredith, addressing the jury, said the only legal defence for the accused was justification, and a plea of such provocation as would cause him to act in the heat of passion and without self-control. An insulting suggestion had been made in the afternoon, and ■ in the light of the boyhood incident which was recalled during the case one would expect the accused to have thoroughly assaulted the American or to have " told him off " and left him. Instead, he argued and nagged, and eventually they dined together and went together in a friendly way to the Papakura camp. The slackness of the guard there, Mr Meredith commented, was quite irrelevqant to tho case, as also was the question whether or not Vallely, the corporal of the guard, was prejudiced against the accused.

Mr Meredith stressed that the accused had said to Vallely: "I'm going to shoot this Yank," and that a few minutes later the American was shot. The story of tho boyhood incident was mentioned only when the accused was faced with the grave responsibility of the American's death. How the accused had reacted to the first suggestion had to be remembered, and also that the second suggestion of an insulting nature came to the accused after he had had a meal and had had some hours to recover from any effects of drink. Counsel submitted, therefore, that the evidence supported the charge of murder. If the jury felt that the accused had been so horrified by the improper, suggestion as to lose his self-control completely, then the charge might be reduced to manslaughter. BLIND SHOT UNDER PROVOCATION.

For the defence, Mr Tompkins said it was not disputed tha ; t the American's death was caused by a shot from the accused's rifle, but that did not mean that he was guilty of murder. Even if it was proved that the shot was lired by the accused, that did not prove murder. The Crown had to prove that the shooting amounted to murder, that it was an unlawful shooting, that it was done inteiitionally, and that it was not a shooting provoked by the deceased's action. The act which the American had suggested to the accused was regarded as a serious offence in New Zealand, and it was held that a suggestion could he regarded as an attempt. It appeared from the medical evidence, that the accused had blindly shot from the hip without deliberatly aiming. " I put it to you that he shot in the belief that he was protecting himself at the time." said counsel. He asked the jury to consider if it was any wonder that the accused " saw red " when the suggestion was repeated at the sentry box, and that he acted in the heat of passion and tost his self-control. Was his condition—hysterical and upset, as described by Dr Hercus —consistent with deliberate shooting? Counsel contended that the evidence showed that the accused's act was completely unpremeditated, and done under provocation. JUDGE SUMS UP. Summing up, His Honor said the jury had to be satisfied by the evidence that the accused had deliberately intended to take life, or intended to do some act that was unlawful, and did it. If either of these conditions was satisfied, the jury was bound to find a verdict, of murder. If anyone intentionally killed another that was an offence of either murder or manslaughter, unless the perpetrator committed the act in defence of his own life or- that of some other person, or if he apprehended grievous bodily harm that could be avoided only by action leading to the death of another.

No matter how contemptible a man's action might appear, his Honor said, it was not for any individual to decide that it merited the infliction of death. Killing could be reduced from murder to manslaughter only if the accused person had received provocation of such a nature as to deprive an. ordinary person ,of his sellcontrol, or where he acted "before his passion had time to cool. The evidence of statements made by the • accused to members of the guard after the shooting did not seem to indicate that the American had intended to do him bodily harm. It seemed that there was evidence from •which the jury might conclude that a shameful suggestion had again been made to the accused at the sentry box. The rjury might rightly consider that that was an insult of a gross nature. His Honor said that Dr Hercus, in evidence had stated that the accused might be under some fear, complex. " I doubt whether that is relevant," he added. He suggested that this evidence should be "considered with great caution and care, as it might be thought that it had overweighted the factor of a fear complex. The jury would have to consider the effect of the boyhood experience on a youth of 19, and might think that to describe it as a fear complex was not in accordance with that effect. Such a person might be touchy and resentful. When the suggestion was repeated to the accused at the sentry box he might be resentful, but they had to consider whether he would lose his self-control and shoot the American. His Honor said the jury would have to take into account with the evidence all that Mr Meredith and Mr Tomkins had said.

" If you come to the conclusion that tho accused intentionally killed without lawful excuse of any kind, your duty is to find him guilty of murder," concluded his Honor. "If you find that he killed under provocation, you, will find him guilty of manslaughter, and, if you are of the opinion that this act was done in order to protect himself from grievous bodily harm, he is entitled to be acquitted." _ After the jury had given its verdict, the accused was discharged.