MANSLAUGHTER VERDICT

Greymouth Evening Star, 1 November 1944, Page 4

MANSLAUGHTER VERDICT

WAIRARSPA TRAGEDY

WELLINGTON, October 30. After a retirement of 25 minutes, the jury returned a verdict of manslaughter in the case in which Douglas Fraser, farm labourer, aged 48, was charged with the murder of Peter Louis, at Gladstone, Masterton on July 27. Mr. R. Hardie Boys, who appeared for accused, addressing the jury, said the evidence mainly came from the accused himself. He himself had supplied the only account of what had happened. This was neither murder, nor manslaughter, in the eyes of the law, counsel claimed. He claimed a complete acquittal of the accused. Accused would always suffer from this drunken deed of his. They could not find this man guilty of murder, as no evidence had been produced which would bring him within the four* corners of the Crimes Act. Officers of the Crown had given evidence that, at the time the accused committed this act he was suffering from delirium tremens. Yet the Crown was not prepared to accept this evidence. To this deluded man, the snake was real, and, in striking at it, he killed this unfortunate youth. This was not manslaughter, but pure misadventure.

The Crown Prosecutor, Mr. W. H. Cunningham, said there was no evidence that the accused was so drunk that he did not know what he was doing. He formed the intention of going out to the woodheap to get the axe. It was not an easy question. It was quite possible that the accused knew, when he struck the blows, what he was doing.

Summing up, Mr. Justice Johnston, said the 'case was not so complicated as, from angles it might appear. The Crown had to prove its case, but it had not to prove that the accused was insane. It was for the defence to prove that. The accused did not plead insanity, but the jury might find that he was so drunk that he was not guilty, owing to insanity. There was no evidence of accident in this case, but of actual killing. It would be a strange thing if a horrible crime of this nature could be held to be not blameworthy at all on the ground that it was an accident. Two medical witnesses had stated that the accused was suffering from delirium tremens, which, they said, was a form of insanity. It would not be denied that there must be degrees in the progress of delirium tremens. It was for the jury to say whether the accused’s mind was so diseased by alcohol that he was insane in the legal sense. It was open to the jury to bring in verdicts of murder, not guilty on the ground of insanity, or manslaughter. It was not open to them to bring in a verdict of not guilty on the ground of accident.

After the jury had given their verdict, His Honor remanded the accused foi' sentence.