"HORRIBLE CRIME."

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21550, 1 November 1944, Page 4

"HORRIBLE CRIME."

MURDER TRIAL. ENDS MANSLAUGHTER VERDICT DEATH OF YOUTH (P.A.) WELLINGTON, Nov. 1. After a retirement of 25 minutes, the jury in the Supreme Court yesterday returned a verdict of manslaughter in the case in which Douglas Fraser, aged 48, [arm labourer, was charged with the murder of Peter James Louis, aged 17. at Gladstone, Masterton, on July 7 last. The case was heard before Mr. Justice Johnston. Mr. W. H. Cunningham, Crown prosecutor, conducted the prosecution and Mr. R. Hardie Boys appeared for the accused. Addressing the jury. Mr. Hardie Boys 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 and counsel claimed the complete acquittal of the accused, who would always suffer from this drunken deed ot his. They could not find this man guilty of murder as no evidence had been produced which would bring him within the lour corners ot the Crimes Act. Officers of the Crown had given evidence that at the time the-accused committed this act lie 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 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 wood heap to get the axe. It. was not an easy question. It was quite possible that the accused knew when he struck the blows what lie was doing. .fudge’s Summing Up Summing up. His Honour said the case was not so complicated as from the angles it might appear. The Crown had to prove its case, but 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 be 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 an accident.

After the jury had given its verdict His Honour remanded the accused for sentence.