WHIROKINO MURDER

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 10 February 1933, Page 5

WHIROKINO MURDER

TRIAL OF ROY EASTON ACCUSED GIVES EVIDENCE (By Telegraph—Press Association) PALMERSTON X., 9th February. In the Easton milder trial, giving evidence from the box, accused, Roy Allen Easton, said that his brother and he were friendly, and never had a serious row. Witness asked his brother to milk another cow, as he wished to go shooting. After ho had secured a gun from the house, lie loaded it when he had passed through a cross fence as he might see a rabbit. “I was walking up to the fence around the yard to tell father that I was going shooting, and when I got close to the fence I slipped on something and the gun went off. 1 caw my brother lurch sideways. I became frightened that he might he severely hurt, so I ran away.” Accused said he could not account for the gun being discharged, nor could he say on what he slipped. He did not know how the cartridge got out of the gun. Cross-examined by Mr Macassey, accused said he did not remember cocking the gun after lie got through the fence. There was a likelihood of the gun going off without being cocked if it had a jar. Accused said his counsel, Mr Bergen, was the first person to whom he had said that the whole affair was an accident.

JURY RETIRES PALMERSTON N., This Day. This morning counsel addressed the jury. Mr Cooper, for accused, submitted that the jury had to be satisfied beyond all doubt that the gun was deliberately fired if they were to bring in a verdict of guilty. If they were to accept fs truthful the evidence of the father insofar qs his statements were against accused, they had equally to accept statements in his favour. Counsel referred to accused’s high character, and said the whole story of the trouble was that Jack Easton merely shook accused, and the Crown had suggested that such a small thing produced not a hot, passionate rage, but cold, revengeful fury. The whole Crown case, he contended, rested on that theory. The defence was that there was positive evidence of accident. Criticising the gun expert’s evidence counsel pointed out that tests had not been made on the spot. Had accused wanted to lie he could have offered explanations, but had said he could not account for the discharge of the gun. The very baldness of that statement was convincing evidence of its truth. Counsel asserted that accused slipped or acd and the gun jerked forward and arged. Counsel for the Crown said there were three alternatives possible—a verdict of murder, a verdict of manslaughter, and not guilty. Accused was the only one who could explain the discharge of the gun, and should be able to give a reasonable, and truthful explanation. The theory of accident was never advanced until the case entered the Court. Why should accused go shooting when there were still six cows to milk. Every circumstance pointed to the fact that the gun had been deliberately fired at deceased. The evidence of the expert wentto show that it was fired at the spot where deceased was sitting. The first action of accused after an accidental discharge of the gun would be to go to his brother, instead of running away. If it had been accidental was there any need, when accused reached home, to call in a solicitor to advise and prepare the defence? Counsel submitted there was not a tittle of evidence that the gun received a jar. Even if accused pointed the gun at Jack with the intention of frightening him, and it went off, he would be l guilty of manslaughter. The Judge, summing up, said the case was .a painful one, but however that, might be he was certain the jury would return a verdict uninfluenced by sympathy for accused’s relatives. There were some indisputable facts. It was clear the gun was discharged while held by accused, either accidentally or on purpose. Further, when discharged it was ■ pointing to where deceased was sitting. The Crimes Act defined that culpable homicide amounted to murder if the offender meant to cause the death of the person killed or if the offender meant to cause bodily injury known to the offender to he likely to cause death. Whether he was reckless in what he did or not, manslaughter was culpable homicide, which did not amount to murder. Culpable homicide might be reduced to manslaughter if the Act was done in a sudden passion caused by strong provocation. The latter was considered to exist where something was done to so. deprive a person of self-con-trol that lie acted upon it before his passion cooled. It was stated that the gun was accidentally fired. It was a .'marvellous coineideffce ttotit the shot found deceased’s heart.

The Judge then reviewed the evidence, and the jury retired.