A MADMAN’S CRIME.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1747, 30 August 1905, Page 66

A MADMAN’S CRIME.

THE SHOOTING OF MR SARGOOD.

DUNEDIN, August 22. At the Supreme Court to-day, Allan Garth MacGregor was charged with the attempted murder, on July 27th, of William Ernest Sargood, of the firm of Sargood. Son, and Ewen. Mr J. F. M. Fraser. Crown Prosecutor, conducted the prosecution, and Messrs W. C. MacGregor and A. C. Hanlon defended. The Crown Prosecutor outlined the facts of the case. Counsel said he could not conceive a crime more eoolly premeditated. The evidence was much the same as that' given at the Police Court, the crossexamination being directed to bring out the condition of accused. No evidence was called for the defence.

Mr MacGregor, addressing the jury, said they must be satisfied the accused shot at Mr Sargood with the deliberate intention of killing or grievously wounding him. The evidence failed to show that accused had intended to do Sargood harm; it simply showed he had been guilty of an act of drunken, reckless, criminal folly. He was sure the evidence would not convince the jury that accused ever intended to murder a considerate employer and kind friend from whom he had parted only an hour before. There was no actual and calculated preparation. Accused made no attempt to get away ; accused’s actions were -the reckless acts of a broken-hearted drunken madman. In view of Mr Sargood's magnanimous letter sent to accused in gaol, and his offer to do what he could for accused’s little girl, he must ask the jury to come to the conclusion that Mr Sargood’s opinion was that' MacGregor did hot really intend to murder him. Supposing accused had shot. Himself that night, a jury, /could have come to no other conclusion than that he had committed suicide while of unsound mind. Counsel believed accused intended to destroy himself, and bought a revolver for that purpose.: then in his muddled state, he for-" 1 the keys of the factory in his pocket, and being anxious to restore them went to Mr Sargood’-s house for the purpose. .Tn putting his hand in his pocket for the keys he unfortunately drew out the revolver. Accused's mind was .a blank from the firing of the shot till ha’f an hour later. - TTe asked the jury to acquit .accused of the charge of shootine with ■intent to murder and convict, : if they must, on the minor offence of causing grievous bodily harm.

The jury retired for -fifty minutes, and returned with ,a verdict that accused shot Sargood while suffering from temporary in«anity. His Honor; You mean tnat ;he was in.sane at the time the act was committed P The foreman: Yes. lhe jury eould not get away from the fact that ,he shot Mr Sargood, :but at the same time are unanimous that he was not in his right mind at the time.

His Honor said finding accused a lunatic at the time -the offence was committed practically amounted to an acquittal so far as the offence went. If insane at the time of the offence, accused was entitled to acquittal, but notwithstanding his acquittal he would, under statutory nrovisions. be detained in custody during the pleasure of. the Colonial Seeretar-v, not as a criminal, but as one who had committed a crime under the influence of mental derangement. According to the act, he had to put to the jury two questions:—(l) Do you find that accused was a lunatic or insane at the time the off ence was. committed:; (21 is the accused ,acquitted on the /ground of' such lunacy p The questions being formally put the foreman reiterated the previous verdict.. HiS Honor: I understand to day you give your verdict, which la a verdict

of acquittal on account of his having been insane at the time. The foreman -. Yes. His Honor then made an order that accused should be kept in strict custody in gaol at Dunedin until the Colonial Secretary’s pleasure should be known Mr MacGregor.: The technical verdict then is not guilty on the ground of insanity? T His Honor: Yes.