ROBERT CORKILL SENTENCED

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7140, 30 May 1910, Page 1

ROBERT CORKILL SENTENCED

CHARGE 0? MANSLAUGHTER SENT TO PULS ON FOR- SIX MONTHS. USE OF FIREARMSRobort Corkill, the old man who was last week found guilty of manslaughter in connection, with the shooting of Christopher Denis Smith, in Pipitoa street, .on March 4tli last, was sentenced to six mouths’ imprisonment on Saturday 'by his Honor the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout. Tho original charge against Corkill was one of murder, but the jury found him guilty of tho grave offence, manslaughter, and recommended him to the mercy of tho court, on account of his age, frailty and tho provocation he had 'received. The jury also thought that Corkill was of tho opinion at the time ho shot Smith that ho was in danger of life, although this opinion was unreasonable. Mr T. M. Wilford, who appeared on behalf of tho prisoner, pleaded for leniency. He said he could find no fault whatever with tho verdict of tho jury, which ho believed absolutely “hit tho nail on tho head. - ” Me was satisfied that Corkill had really been in great fear of his life. The j ury had said that this fear was uuj uoUfiaole, and with this view also counsel could find no fault. Tho carrying of firearms was always a serious thing, and in this case had caused grave trouble. Hut at tho samo time tho 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 favour. A long punishment _ would have no extra effect, and nothing that could now | bo 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 h© was unable otherwise to defend himself. Ho was deaf, purblind, a cripple, and physically ailing, and to impose a long sentence on him would be a cruelty.

His Honor said he had deferred tho passing of sentence yo 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 week -state, and unable to walk oven 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 he an exceedingly lenient one. At the same time ho would point out for the benefit of those in the prisoner's class (Corkill was a bailiff) that tho 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 bo tho popular opinion that there was no assault unless a blow was actually struck. This was wrong. Anyone who attempted to use force against another x>erSon committed an assault in the eyes of tho law. Perhaps it was because ho did not know this that the prisoner had armed himself, but the mere fact that he had armed himself way on© which his Honor could not overlook. The prisoner had don© wrong. Had ho not armed himself this tragedy, would not have happened. His Honor _must always regard with horror the taking of human life, but in tho present case ho had to take into account the* prisoner’s age, his previous good conduct, tho jury's recommendation to mercy, and tho fact that tho prisoner was in a weak state, and could not exrt to live long. He would bo sentenced six months' imprisonment. Owing to his physical ailments hard labour would not b© ordered.