The Omahu Murder Case.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XXIII, Issue 280, 1 November 1889, Page 2

The Omahu Murder Case.

Wellington, November 1. No witnesses were called for the defence. Mr Ootterill addressed the jnty. The Crown apked them in the first place to pat aside all question as to whether the Donnelly or Broughton party were the opressora. He thought the defence would be on two lines, first, the provocation, but he thought that would rest more with the sympathies than the intelligence of the jurymen ; the second line might be that the prisoner was a Maori of the old school and a man of hasty temper, who was likely to be greatly irritated by the action of the Donnelly party, The learned counsel quoted cases to show that provocation and hasty temper were not allowed as pallia-, tivea of murder. It would not do to permit the natives .to take the law in their own hands without being punishable. No doubt Turanga'a party were wrong in going on the land and behaving as they did, but that was no provocation for such a murderous assault. Mr Cornford followed for the defence, remarking that the evidence for the proßeoution was suoh a terrible mass of contradiction as to lead to the inference that a great parti of it had been wilfully distorted, and truth and fiction hod neon skilfully woven together to euoh an extent aa to suggest that the witnesses had put their heads together to make a strong caae, tuva bringing about that which was dearest to the heart of the old Maori, u utu," or revenge for pass wrongs. Ho contended that the prisoner did nob take a pistol wibh him for tha express purpose of shootiug Turanga, and whon he met him he lost his temper and fired. He founded a plea of justification for that shot on the disturbances which had arisen in a onoa peaoefal village after the death of Renata Kawapo and the effect the estrangement had on the nature of tha Maori. As to the Becond and third shots, Mr Cornford said that Waatariwi never fired them-, and in support of this contention ho pointed to the contradictory nftturo of the evideuco, and the fact that the coat where the fatal shot was supposed to have euterfid was ecorohed, and the bnlieb travelled through tho body, this b,oing almost conclusive that the ohotf was fired daring a scuffl", but not by the prisoner. He suggested that Hare (the wifd o| Turanga), who was handling one of the pistole, whilo the men were on the ground,' fired and struck her husband inpfcead of \y&atariwf. His Honor th'sn proceeded to sum np. The jury returned at 2.20 with a verdiot of " manslaughter," and recommended the pris* oner to merqy, The Chief. Justice passed a sentence of ten years penal servitude.