SEAMAN’S DEATH

Greymouth Evening Star, 23 June 1923, Page 3

SEAMAN’S DEATH

j JURY ACQUIT ACCUSED. ' ! All day yesterday and part of the evenJ ing the Supreme Court was engaged in ’ the hearing of the case in which Charles Michael Doyle, formerly a fireman on the Kaituna, was, in consequence of the death of William Henry Simpson, a seaman on the same vessel, allegedly from injuries received in a scuffle with the accused, I charged on three counts: (1) manslaughter, (2) assault with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm, and (3) assault, causing actual grievous bodily harm. Mr F. A. Kitchingham appeared for the Crown and Mr W. J.. Joyce represented the accused. After the “Star” went to press yesterday medical evidence was called. • Dr J. Lovell Gregg said that when the patient was admitted to the hospital he reduced the dislocation in the ordinary way. Replying to Mr Joyce, he said that in his opinion a post-mortem should have

Ibeen held. Without autopsy the cause of death could not be definitely determined. To Mr Kitchingham: Even in view of the circumstances of the operation it should have been held. Cases such as Simpson’s were rare. He always held that the more post-mortems one c)uld hold the better. “Are you speaking. from die viewpoint of experience?” asked counsel. “Not at all,” replied the witness. | Dr Wm. McKay, after giving evidence of the operation, in reply to questions from Mr Joyce, said that the information I obtained from an operation was just as valuable as from a post-mortem. What he actually saw in the operation was sufficient to cause death. The case was very rare. He had not known of a man to die from it, but had experience of a similar case where a man wounded in the arm with a bullet died five weeks after the wound healed up. The operation on Simpson was considered as absolutely necessary by Dr Mcßrearty and himself, and was the only chance of saving the I man’s life. Without the operation he ’ would gradually sink unner the concealed haemorrhage. When other treatment had

failed, he and Dr Mcßrearty knew that the only hope was to search for and tie the bleeding point. A post-mortem was not always necessary. The cause of death could very often be arrived at without it.” “Not always with certainty?” asked Mr J ovce.

“Oh, well,” replied the doctor, “there is no certainty in anything.” “It is quite conceivable, Mr Joyce,” said his Honor, “that a. post-mortem is not always necessary. For instance, if A shot B through the head, and B died as the result, it would not require a post-mortem to determine the cause of death.” “We had a case very recently, your Honor,” said Dr McKay, “where a tree fell on a man’s head and crushed it like egg pulp. Sureiy no post-mortem would be needed there .Any layman could see

what was the tcause of death.” What a. post-mortem would have shown, he continued, would only be the injured vessel with a hele Where the doctor had seen the blood spurting from. Detective William Roycroft handed in the signed statement of the accused. This concluded the case for the Crown. Mr Joyce called no evidence, and counsel addressed the jury at length, pgdng,. llao j ioqc, Isai vtb IMG,y-pO2r His Honor summed up, dealing exhaustively with the various aspects of the evidence. The crime of manslaughter, he said, did not depend on intention in any* sense, for if a man did something with the intention to kill, his crime was murder. But if he did something without intention but and negligently he committed homicide, it was manslaughter. In the second count against the accused the Crown must show intention to do grievous bodily harm. The third count did not require intention. A great deal had been said about the facts of the case, not more however than was warranted. The evidence of the Crown showed that the prisoner assaulted deceased. If the story of the Crown were true, there would be an unprovoked attack by accused, producing the injuries described, which were alleged to have been the cause of death. The Law on the subject of operatic nwas that even if a surgeon acted improperly, but in good faith, in performing an operation and. death ensued as a result of thfi operation, the person responsible for the. infliction of injuries which necessitated the operation was still liable. He mentioned that only to make the Law on the point clear, not to suggest in any way that the operation in Simpson’s case was improper. There was no evidence whatever that it was so, and it would be most unfortunate if an impression got abroad that a surgeon doing as the practitioner in the present case had done was acting improperly or unskillfully. The evidence was that the operation was the deceased’s onlc chance. If the jury were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that accused was responsible for the injuries, it would be their duty, painful and unpleasant no doubt, to return a. verdict of guilty on the first count. It was unfortunate that when the accident occurred the other occupants of the foc’sle did not take more active measures to assist the man when lie was hurt. It had to be remembered, however, that incidents of the nature described were not uncommon on shipboard, and in most cases a quick recovery ensued. It might be also said that Doyle was the dominant spirit in the foc’sle, and, as one witness had stated, that the other men “made themselves scarce” when he was about. Dealing with the legal aspects of the case, his Honor mentioned the circumstances under which assault was legal and in selfdefence. As to the suggestion of a quarrel and a scuffle near the gangway, they

had to judge between the sworn evidence and the mere signed statement. If they came to the conclusion that Simpson was the agressor t re accused would be justified, but there was no evidence of that. It had been suggested that it would be impossible to arrive at the cause of death in Hie absence of a post-mortem. This was given on the authority of Taylor. But a book was not evidence, though it might be properly used in cross-examination. Dr Gregg said that he thought there should be a post-mortem, while Dr McKay was not of that opinion. Very properly, ho thought, the plea of drunkenness had not been advanced by the accused’s counsel. It would not be of any use, for no drunken man could do what accused had done if he were very deeply under the influence of liquor. His Honor concluded by briefly recapitulating the law on the subject of the charges, and then instructed the jury to find their verdict. The jury retired at 5.30 p.m. and returned at 8.35, with a verdict* of “Not Guilty” on all counts.