BANK-CLERK ACQUITTED

Greymouth Evening Star, 18 February 1937, Page 7

BANK-CLERK ACQUITTED

INVERCARGILL SHOOTING CASE ■ r ■ — GRAND JURY RIDER I [PEB PBESS ASSOCIATION.] - INVERCARGILL, February 17. A verdict of not guilty was returned the jury this afternoon in the case h which Oswald Cameron Cowie* lank clerk, aged 17, was charged with nanslaughter, and the accused was discharged. .The charge arose from the shooting tragedy on the morning of December 27, when following a visit by Tangi Kitson, William Martin Robertson, Michael Fletcher, and William Thomas McQuarrie, four' iyoung 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 J Prosecutor asked if the accused fired ; the shot which caused Fletcher’s death. If the jury was not satisfied that he did, then that was the end of / the case. If it was satisfied he did then it would consider whether anything justified -or excused his firing

the shot. If his conduct was excus- ! able, then the accused should be ac- ! quitted, but if there was no excuse then, putting sentiment aside, it was i the® jury’s duty to find a verdict of guilty. Accused said he did fire the shot that killed Fletcher, and he had sworn on oath that he fired the shot. In these circumstances the jury must find their answer to that question inthe affirmative. On tho matter of justification or excuse there was no question of accident. Accused fired the shot and said he fired it at Fletcher. In the second place there was no question of self-defence. Fletcher was not threatening the accused but was trying to get out through the door. “It can only be characterised as the act of insensate folly,” said the Crown Prosecutor, who drew attention to the difference'between the statfement made to the police by the accused and his evidence in the Lower Court.

SPEECH FOR DEFENCE.

For the defence, Mr A. C. Hanlon, K.C., 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 the accused’s statements, counsel put it to the jury that the accused’s statement to the police was not necessarily conclusive. ■ The position they 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 the statement or in his evidence in the Lower Court. Someone else might have fired the fatal shot, 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? Should the accused because of his admission be convicted? None of the witnesses had sworn that the accused fired the shot or that they saw him fire it. Was the accused, and the accused only, guilty of the offence? “At the bank we are told there was 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. Four men who visited the bank were in the mood to be cantankerous and would not leave when asked -to go by Wyatt.” Accused knew that one of the men had got hold of the revolver and cartridges and was really frightened as to what would happen. That was probably the 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 bank property or themselves? There must be something wrong, he said, when] two youths were given revolvers with no instructions in their use. Such practice should be stopped. It had led up to a terrible tragedy. In summing up, Mr Justice Kennedy said the sole question the jury must determine was whether the accused killed a human being by an unlawful act. If he shot Fletcher, was the shooting in the circumstances an unlawful thing to do or, on the contrary, was it lawful? 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 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 stage upon Wyatt? Was’ force used' to prevent an attack upon him? There was no one in contact with him, no threats had been made, and the revolver had not been produced or used. Finally, fear did not make an act committed under its influence lawful, if it was otherwise unlawful. The issue was: Had it been found that accused shot deceased and was the shooting an unlawful act? The jury retired at 4.20 p.m., and returned at 5.12 p.m. with a verdict of not guilty. After discharging Cowie, His Honor read the presentment made by the grand jury. It stated: “That this grand jury recommends that no minor should be left as guardian of a building, with access to firearms.’’