MURDER CHARGE

Greymouth Evening Star, 1 November 1944, Page 4

MURDER CHARGE

SHOOTING AT CHRISTCHURCH.

CHRISTCHURCH, October 31. The trial of Roy Kitchener Kennedy aged 29, airman and baker, on a charge that on September 10 at Christchurch he murdered Edgar Williams, opened in the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Northcroft this morning. The Crown Prosecutor, Mr. A. T. Donnelly, with him Mr. A W Brown, conducted the police case, and Mr. C. S. Thomas, with him Mr. K. J. McMenamin, appeared for Kennedy. Twenty-eight witnesses were called by the Crown. The evidence for the prosecution followed that of the Magistrates Court hearing and it was concluded. The Court adjourned till to-morrow.

ADDRESS TO JURY.

CHRISTCHURCH, November 1. The trial of Roy Kitchener Kennedy, airman and baker, 29, on a charge of murdering Edgar Williams at Christchurch on September 10 was continued to-day. Accused’s counsel, Mr. C. o. Thomas, in his address to the jury, emphasised that Kennedy’s one concern was to persuade his wife to return to their home, and that when he went to Page’s Road his demeanour had been calm, and not that of a man bent on violence. The most important Question to be answered was what was the motive? There was no motive and the ‘jury should take heed of that in reaching a verdict. During the meeting at Page’s Road Williams had not said a word to Kennedy and, beyond friendly greetings, Kennedy had not spoken to Williams, so that right to that time their friendly relations were not disturbed. Kennedy’s one burning desire was to get his wile home and re-build their home life ana it was not likely that to attain that end he would commit murder. The police evidence showed that a piece ofskin had been peeled off the third finger of Kennedy’s right hand, added Mr. Thomas. He suggested that that showed that the gun had been discharged while Kennedy was holding it loosely and that it was not raised to his shoulder. That indicated that the shooting was accidental. His Honor, summing up, said that if Kennedy were to be acquitted on the grounds of accident it might constitute a public scandal, indeed a public danger to hold life cheap. “We are living in disturbed times. There have been cases in this country where a life has been taken and juries have been induced to take a lenient view. Jurors jnust not act in this way. They must aecide, not on emotion or individual desires, but on the evidence. In this case the jury’s proper consideration rests between murder and manslaughter,” concluded His Honor. The jury retired at 12.53.