CORKILL SENTENCED.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLIV, Issue 122, 31 May 1910, Page 7

CORKILL SENTENCED.

CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER

SENT 10 PRISON FOR SIX

MONTHS

Robert Corkill, the old man who was last week found guilty of manslaughter in connection with the shooting of Christopher Dems Smith, in Pipitea Street, en March 4th last, was sentenced to six 'months _ imprisonment on Saturday by nis Honor the Chief Justice, Siv Robert Stout The orginal charge against Corkill (says tliie N.Z. Times) was one of murder, but the jury found him guilty of the less grave offence, manslaughter, and recommended him to the mercy of the court, on account of his ages, frailty and the provocation he had received. The jury also thought that Cbrkill was of the opinion at the time he shot Smith that he was in danger of his life, although this opinion was unreasonable. Mr T. M. Wilford, who appeared on behalf of the prisoner, pleaded for leniency. lie said he could find no fault whatever with the verdict of the jury, which he believed absolutely "hit the nail on the head." H© wias satisfied that Corkill had really been in great fear of his life. The jury had said that this fear was unjustifiable, and with this view also counsel could find no fault. The carrying of firearms was always a serious thing, and in tins case had caused grave trouble. But at the same time the prisoner was a man with a nature gentle as a child's, and with a character above reproach. Counsel asked his Honor to take this into consideration. He was a very old man—his age was sixty-eight—and had lived forty odd years in New Zealand without once transgressing the law. That was something which must weigh in his favor. A long punishment would have no extra effect, and nothing that could now be done would bring the deceased back to life. The old man had already suffered considerable punishment, and his Honor must remember that he had acted under fear of imminent death, and when he wias unable otherwise to defend himself. He was deaf, parblind, a cripple, and physically ailing, and to impose a long sentence on him would be a cruelty. His Honor said he had deferred the passing of sentence so that he could give full consideration to the jury's recommendation. He had also had a report from the gaoler as to the prisoner's health, and he found that Corkill was in a weak state, and unable to walk even a. short distance without having to stop owing to shortness of breath. To send him to gaol for a long term would be only to sentence him to imprisonment for life, and to condemn him to death in prison. The sentence his Honor would pass would therefore be an exceedingly lenient one. At the same time he would point out for the benefit of those in the prisoner's class (Corkill was a bailiff) that the carrying of firearms as a means of protection was very wrong. The law specially protects bailiffs, and anyone who assaults them is liable to severe punishment. It seemed to be the popular opinion that there was no as-

sault unless a blow: was actually struck. This was wrong. Anyone who attempted to use force against another person committed an assault in the eyes of the law. Perhaps it was because he did not know this that the prisoner had armed himself, but the mere fact that he had armed himself was one which his Honor could not overlook. The prisoner had done wrong. Had he not armed himself this tragedy would not have happened. Ilis Honor must always regard with horror the taking of human life, but in the present case he had to take into account the prisoner's age, his previous good conduct, the jury s recommendation to mercy, and the fact that the prisoner was m a weak state, and could not expect to live long. He would be sentenced to six months' imprisonment. Owing to his physical ailments hard labor would not be ordered.