Seven Years’ Gaol For Manslaughter In Chertsey Case

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 22942, 10 May 1949, Page 6

Seven Years’ Gaol For Manslaughter In Chertsey Case

(P.A.) CHRISTCHURCH, May 10. A verdict of manslaughter was returned by the jury in the Supreme Court last evening against Samuel Arthur Protheroc, farm hand, of Ashburton, who was charged with the murder of Brian O’Connor at Chertsey on March 18. Protheroe was sentenced by Mr. Justice Northcroft to seven years’ imprisonment with hard labour.

Sir Arthur Donnelly was the Crown Prosecutor and Mr. D. W. Russell, with him Mr. V. W. Russell, appeared for Protheroe. “Protheroe is charged with the murder of O'Connor, a frail old man, aged about 70,” said Sir Arthur Donnelly. Lived Alone in Hut

O'Connor lived alone in a oneroomed hut at Pendarves, a short distance from Chertsey. He was well known and apparently a harmless, decent and respectable man. O’Connor was found dead in his hut on March 19. The hut was in great disorder. Medical evidence showed that O'Connor died from shock caused by many terrible injuries, continued Sir Arthur Donnelly. O'Connor was dead or dying when placed in his bunk, and was undressed except for his socks. The body was covered with crockery, blocks of wood, saucepans, spoons and clothing, while a chrysanthemum plant was placed over the face so that it was practically concealed. Dr. A. B. Pearson, pathologist at the hospital, described the injuries which, he said, O'Connor had suffered. Leslie William Robinson, licensee of the Chertsey Hotel, said that O'Connor was perfectly sober the last time witness saw him. The witness saw Protheroe in the hotel yard at about 8 p.m. on March 18. He said that O’Connor had hit him with a piece of wood. The witness went to O’Connor’s hut on the next afternoon and then telephoned to tho police.

To Ilis Honour Robinson said he saw no marks on Protheroe and did not take the affair seriously. He thought it had been a bit of an argument.

Senior-Detective F. J. Brady said he located Protheroe at Methven on March 20.

The accused was later brought to Christchurch.

Detective-Sergeant G. W, Alty read a statement signed by the accused. In the statement Protheroe said that when he went to O’Connor’s hut he received a blow on the left temple. He then hit O'Connor some blows and dragged him outside to show to a man. Before leaving the hut the first time he forced O’Connor to get into bed. O'Connor was checking him all the time.

He remembered throwing things around in the hut. He remembered that he was in and out of the hut several times that night and he called out in a loud voice because he wanted the people of Chertsey to know what had happened and that O’Connor had hit himHe received only one blow from O’Connor and that made him wild and he hit back. Detective-Sergeant Alty said that Protheroe was quite sober when interviewed at Methven though he had been drinking. He seemed genuinely sorry to hear that O’Connor was dead. He did not seem to have a clear recollection of the events of those two days. Dr. J. W. Bridgman, giving evidence for the defence, said he attended the accused in January and sent him to hospotil suffering from a fracture of the skull. The witness examined the accused on March 21 and found he had a tenderness on the right side of the head.

Protheroe also complained of tenderness on the left side of the head. He must have received a fairly severe blow. He also had three bruises just above the right elbow. Sir Arthur Donnelly: When you attended him towards the end of January he had been in some brawl? The witness: I do not know. There were a lot of people there. What were his injuries?—His face was swollen. His eyes were nearly closed and his nose and mouth had been bleeding.

Is it a fair inference that he had been in some trouble?—Something obviously had happened to him.\

That concluded the evidence and counsel then addressed the jury. In his summing up His Honour dealt with the law concerning murder and manslaughter. He said that if Protheroe’s drunkenness was such that he attacked O’Connor intending to kill him, or cause him bodily harm reckless of whether the injuries caused death, then he was guilty of murder. If he was too drunk to form the intent to kill, then the crime would be manslaughter.

Earlier His Honour had remarked that it was a very drunken night and protheroe had difficulty in remembering the sequence of events through being vei'y drunk that night. When the jury brought- in the verdict His Honour commented: “I think that is a proper verdict.”