ATTEMPTED MURDER

Grey River Argus, 15 June 1931, Page 5

ATTEMPTED MURDER

GIRLS SHOT Two Men Convicted NUNN GETS SEVEN YEARS. (Per Press Association). NAPIER, June 12. Senjteneing Hubert Frederick Nunn to seven years’ reformative detention, for the attempted murder of Mavis Steel Smith, at Hastings, on April 7, of which he was found guilty in the Supreme Court this afternoon, Chief Justice Myers said that he did not regard the accused as of stable mentality, but he was very far from being insane as laid down by legal definition. He did not intend to inflict a term of imprisonment with hard labour, but would sentence accused to a long period of reformative detention, during which time he would be under observation. When the hearing was resumed, Mr Hallett examined accused. He asked: When did you first realise you had shot Mavis? Accused: When I reached home.

Mr Lusk: Did you say to Miss Smith that if you could not have her, no one else would?—Yes. What did you mean by that?—l did not mean to harm her. Did you intend to kill her, or to kill any man who separated you?—No. I did not mean it that way. His Honour: But what did you mean? —Well I loved Mavis with all my heart and it hurt me to know any other man should have her. if I didn’t. I never intended to harm her. His Honour: All right, then.

Mr Lusk: You remember all the details of the conversation, but do not remember the actual shooting?—That is so.

Why did you take a gun from the car?—T don’t know. I intended to frighten.

His Honour: But how frighten her?— Not Miss Smith, sir. His Honour: Then whom did you intend to frighten?—l thought she was coming home with another man. Mr Lusk: What were you going to do with him?—T don’t know. His Honour: You realised when you got home you had shot the girl?—Yes. Did you not hear her call out “Dad! Dad!”’?—T don’t remember, sir. You did not take long to get away? —No, if would seem I did not take long. When did you write the letter?— About half an hour after T got home. When did you put it in the upholstery of the settee?—When the police arrived. Did you put it there to conceal it from them?—Yes. They had told me Mavis was not dead. Then the police questioned you?— Yes. And you said “I d’d not shoot her. I may have been instrumental in doing so?”—I must have said so. T was dazed at the time. Did you say you did not shoot Miss Smith, and you could say who did, but would not do so just then?—Yes. That is also what you told the doctors some time later?—Yes. This is the first time you have admitted shooting the girl?—That is sb. The girl says you bluntly asked her to marry you that night, and when she said “no” yob said “Then I’ll shoot you?”—I dont remember saying

that to her. Why did you\ have the gun ? —Not to shoot Mavfs, sir. But why have ithe gun?—At very worst to frighten somebody. Who?—Not Mavis. T thought she had come home with another man. Did you intend to shoot him?—No, just frighten him. perhaps. Addressing the jury, Mr Hallett said the act was not pre-meditated. Up till midnight accused had no intention of committing any wrong. He was infatuated with the girl, and for a considerable period the affection was mutual. Miss Smith was away from Hastings for some time, and accused when she returned went purely to see the girl whom he had not seen for some months. He suspected Miss Smith was going out with another man. It was quite probable he intended to frighten, not Miss Smith, but the other man. That probably was why he took the gun. He was madly in love with her, and it was highly improbable he would deliberately kill her. Counsel entreated the jury to believe Nunn’s story, in which he said he had no intention of injuring Miss Smith, and did not recollect what had happened until afterwards.

Summing up. His Honour outlined the simple illustration of the man who had a debt owing to him, . and after making representations for payment, threatened to shoot the debtor if it was not paid. When the account came later for payment, the debtor refused to make payment, and he was shot. Subsequently the creditor said he shot his debtor, but did not mean to do it. His Honour contended the present case was practically identical to his illustration. If a defence of that kind was to be accepted, His Honour said, he was thankful the responsibility was that of the jury and not his. There was no doubt the accused was infatuated with the girl and had made a threat which he had carried into effect. It was true there was something sinister in having a gun in a car so long as he left it there. Nunn evidently thought she was dead and had cleared out. Shortly afterwards he had written a letter in which he stated he had always vowed no other man would have the girl. When questioned by the police there was time for him to have said he did not intend to shoot the girl and not merely to have said he did not do it, but knew who did.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty after 40 minutes’ retirement.

Kerr Convicted

(Per Press Association). HAMILTON, June 13,

Frank James Kerr, aged forty years, was tried to-dajr in the Supreme Court

at Hamilton on a. charge of attempting to murder Gertrude Edith West, aged eighteen, at Te Awamuitu, oil January 24. Mr 11. T. Gillies, for the Crown, said that the prisoner had been paying attentions to Miss West. These were acceptable neither to the girl nor to her parents. Kerr kept pestering the girl a nd finally was ordered to remain away from the house. A few nights before the shooting Kerr attempted again to see the girl. The girl’s parents were poor aud her mother had to go out to do cleaning work. On the morning of January 21, Miss West was returning from her office-cleaning work when Kerr, who it. would be shown, had borrowed a shot gun, followed her up in a motor-car and spoke to her. She resented his approach, passing on home. Later Kerr called at her parents’ house and there in the garden shot the girl, inflicting a very severe wound necessitating the girl’s remaining in hospital for a lengthy period, during which time her life was despaired of. The prisoner, immediate, ly after the shooting, said he had fired the gun accidentally. The whole ques. tion for the jury to decide was whether Kerr went to the house with the deliberate intention of shooting the girl or whether the gun went off accidentally.

Miss West gave evidence on the lines of her evidence in the Lowe* Court.

Kerr was convicted, and sentence was postponed till Monday.