VERDICT OF GUILTY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 80, 30 November 1945, Page 5

VERDICT OF GUILTY

STRONG RECOMMENDATION TO MERCY ADDRESSES AND SUMMING UP IN HOPE CASE A verdict of guilty with a strong recommendation to mercy was return ed by the jury last evening in the case in which Corona Effie Webby was I charged in the Supreme Court with | causing actual bodily harm to Keith J Douglas Webby in such circumstances ' that if death had occurred she would j have been guilty of manslaughter. ■ The jury retired at 3.26 p.m. and j returned at 7.40 p.m., after an adjournment for tea. | The Chief Justice, Sir Michael j Myers, presided, Mr C. R. Fell, Crown Prosecutor, conducted the prosecution, and Mr W. V. Rout appeared for the | accused. In further cross-examination yesterday afternoon Senior-Sergeant G. G. Kelly explained the experiments he carried out with No. 4 cartridges fired , at basil leather. That concluded the case for the ; Crown. Mr Rout said he did not intend to I call evidence. ’ CROWN PROSECUTOR'S ADDRESS j In his address to the jury the Crown _ I Prosecutor pointed out that they were ! I only concerned with the second , charge. It was for them to consider 1 whether Webby fired the shot or whether his wife fired it. If she fired li, • was it accidentally or for some ! ulterior motive but not for the purpose of killing him? Counsel suggested that the clicks Webby heard were the gun being loaded and made ready for discharge. Was there any reason ’ for Mrs Webby to come into the room and fire the gun, injuring her hus- | band? The wife said she did not hear ' j the gun, although a gun going eff in ‘ j a room would make a terrific noise, i Webby said he was awakened by a ! blow on the head. His story sounded ’ | reasonable. If he tried to commit ’ suicide he must have done it lying » i down and the evidence was that it ; could only have been done by the use ? j of a contraption. There was no evi- | dence of such a contraption. The only j reasonable story was that the gun was

j discharged by the only other person in the room—Mrs Webby. It was un- ' likely that it. was discharged by accij dent. COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENCE j Mr Rout, in his address, referred to ; ; the evidence of the experts, and said i Senior-Sergeant Kelly had agreed that the gun could be fired by a person on the bed by the use of a piece of string. The main witness was unfortunately the husband of the accused. The jury weie entitled to have their wits sharpened to the greatest possible extent by the peculiar facts of this case, in finding the accused on one side and her husband giving evidence against her. The couple had been happily married for a number of years and the background was not one in which one expected to find major or minor tragedy. Counsel said he doubted whether the court had heard the whole truth. For one thing both Webbys said they had not heard the gun. Was that possible? Counsel . pointed out that most of the evidence was indirect or circumstantial. He discussed the Crown theory for the reconstruction of the affair and asked ! if the jury was reasonably satisfied that Mrs Webby fired the gun in the direction of her husband with intent to hurt him. The jury might find its own explanation for what had happened The court did not know who took the gun into the room or who handled it. It might be that neither party fired the gun. If Mrs Webby fired the gun why did the police not find her fingerprints on it?

“SIMPLE ISSUE” STATED BY HIS HONOUR The Chief Justice said the case was an unfortunate and unpleasant one. The jury had to determine this case not on sympathy but principles of justice. The simple issue in this case was whether the accused or the husband fired the shot. If the jury found that she fired the shot, it was his duty to tell them that she must be found guilty on this charge. It did not matter w'hat the intention was. That was his direction on law and they were bound by it. The present count was a much less serious charge than that of attempted murder. His Honour defined the difference between murder and manslaughter. There was no suggestion that any third party was involved. Either Webby or his wife fired the shot. The judge reviewed the evidence which indicated that the shot was not fired pointblank as it must be in a case of suicide. There was no evidence of a mechanical contraption and it was for the jury to consider whether there could reasonably have been such an attempt at suicide. He pointed out the husband’s evidence that shortly after the incident his wife said “I only did it to frighten you.” The jury returned a verdict as already indicated.

ACCUSED REMANDED TO MONDAY NEXT

When the court resumed this morning Mr Fell said he had arranged, subject to a telegram from the Minister of Justice, for the accused to be reported on by the Superintendent of the Mental Hospital. Accused was remanded till Monday afternoon.