MANSLAUGHTER CASE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLII, Issue 9692, 21 June 1917, Page 11

MANSLAUGHTER CASE

RESULT OF STREET BRAWL THE ACCUSED COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. The fatality which occurred in Willis street on May 30th was investigated in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr L. G. Reid, S.M., William Reynolds being charged with tho manslaughter of Bert Parker. Inspector Marsaok appeared for tho prosecution, and Air H. F. O’Leary for the defence. MEDICAL EVIDENCE. Dr C. D. Henry deposed that on the evening of May 30th he was called to Lambton quay Police Station, and he examined the deceased Bert Parker. He was unconscious, having a scalp wound at tho back of the head. His lips were slightly bruised, and had been bleeding. Ho was suffering from concussion. Witness formed the conclusion that he was suffering from injury to the brain, and gave instructions for him to bo removed to tho hospital if he did not become conscious within an hour. Tho injury might have been sustained by his being knocked down and his head striking the footpath. To Mr O’Leary; His condition was not due to his being under the influence of liquor, but he had a slight smell of alcoholic liquor about his breath. The wound on the head was not a severe one. There was no evidence of a fracture of the skull. Severe laceration of the brain would not be expected from the appearance of tho external part of the head. Dr F. J. Mulhoiland, house surgeon at the Wellington Hospital, stated that about 11 p.m. on May 30th Parker was brought to the hospital. Witness examined him on admission, and found that he was semi-uncon-scioua, with an abrasion at the back of the head and hemorrhage at the mouth. There was no appearance of a fracture of the skull. His breath smelt of alcohol. Witness recognised that the condition of the man was serious. He never gained complete consciousness. On the evening of May 31st he was operated on, and died the same night. A post-mortem examination disclosed abrasions on the forehead, left cheek, and back of the head. The internal examination of the skull showed no fracture. On the brain itself was a clot of blood extending to both sides, but more' on the left. The anterior portion of the brain was Lacerated. The other organs were healthy. Death resulted from hemorrhage of a lacerated brain. The conditions would be consistent with the man having been knocked down, and his striking some hard substance. The laceration of the brain occurred through violence. To Mr O’Leary: The abrasions were not severe. From the bruises witness was surprised at the post-mortem conditions, but not from the deceased’s symptoms. From the exterior conditions he would not have expected such serious injury to the brain. Tho most severe abrasion was at the hack of the head, while the laceration was in front. This was not an -unusual condition. The clot was caused by the rupture of bloodvessels. He did not think it possible for a man to be walking about with a rupture of the brain in the full possession of his faculties. It was certainly possible, but the man’s condition would not be normal. THE WIDOW’S STORY.

Ethel Parker, widow of the .deceased, stated that on May 30th. about 8.30 p.m.. she was at the corner of Willis and Dixon streets with her husband, who was talking to Mr and Mrs Duffy. Ho was quite well and sober, and had been in good health up to that time. - He went into the Te Aro Hotel with Mr Duffy and a soldier named Stephenson. Witness remained talking to Mrs Duffy. The accused Reynolds came up and spoke to Mrs Duffy first. He made improper suggestions to the pair of them, and witness smacked him twice on tho face. Just then her husband came out of the hotel, and she was complaining to him as to what bad happened, when accused came between them. They were walking up Dixon street towards Willis street at the time. Accused came from behind and put his arm between them. Her husband turned round and the accused hit him on the mouth with his closed fist. Her husband was knocked down and the hack of his head struck the paved road. Witness caught hold of Reynolds and held him by the coat. He said: “I have given him one that he will remember for some time.” Tho police then came up, and she gave Reynolds in charge. NETTLED UNDER CROSSEXAMINATION. In cross-examination, witness said she had been living at 115, Dixon street, near where her husband was struck.' He was not then working in Wellington. She had come from Mohakum a month previously. Mr O’Leary: "How long had you been married to Parker ?” “What has that got to do with you?” indignantly replied the witness. On being informed by tho magistrate that she would have to answer tho question, witness said: “Well, it is 19 years yesterday, on the 19th June, if it is any news to you.” Mr. O'Leary: ‘You had been frequenting that locality tor tho four weeks previous to the occurrence?”— “Considering I lived that way you don’t expect me to walk any other street.” “iou had been frequenting that locality of an evening for the four weeks previously?” —-‘“Certainly not.” ‘‘Had you not during the previous week or two been quarrelling with your husband in one of the streets of that locality 'i ’ • —“No.” ‘‘lf evidence were given that you were seen quarrelling m Vivian street and that you struck Parker over the head with an umbrella would you deny it?”—“Yes; ausolutely, because 1 have no umbrella."’ “You prooabiy broke it then?”— “How couid 1 break it when 1 did not have it.” “Was Mrs Duffy standing by when accused came to you?”—“Yes, she and her husoand.’ "Where was Mrs Duffy living?”— “That is for you to find out. i am not going to say. “Vvhiat time ©lapsed from when Reynolds spoke to you and your husband was knocked down?”—“About five minutes.” “Your husband was standing on the kerbstone when knocked down by Reynolds?” —'‘Yes.” CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. John R. Martin, compositor, gave evidence as to seeing Mrs Parker try-

ing to hit Reynolds and a soldier coming between them. Parker came along with another woman.

“I am the woman ho was with,” interrUptsd Mrs Parker. “This woman.” continued witness, “was leading Mrs Parker away and Reynolds followed them and made some remark about Parker being a ‘bludger.’ Then the deceased appeared on the scene and after an altercation Reynolds hit Parker, who fell from the kerbstone to the road. Parker did not hit Reynolds. Witness was from 20 to 25 feet away. Mrs Parker held Reynolds till the police came. He heard Reynolds make some remark to the effect that if Parker got up again he would knock him down and he had deserved all he got.” Ronald AloNah. foreman at a clothing factory, Who had also witnessed the occurrence from a distance, said be heard Mrs Parker say to Reynolds : “Don’t you insult my husband.” He saw Mrs Parker smack him over the face. Then Parker came out ol the hotel. He took up a threatening aptitude and the next thing he saw was the deceased falling on the tramline in Willie street. Witness went along to assist tho deceased, and Reynolds acknowledged that he had bit the deceased. He said. "If there is any more in the crowd like him I would hit them too.” When tho police arrived Reynolds asked three times, “Do you want me? If so I’ll come.” Constable S. Frost stated that when ho arrived on the scene Airs Parker said she had held Reynolds to prevent him running away. Reynolds said. “It is all right, constable. I don’t want to run away.” Reynolds stated that h© met Parker in the hotel and the latter asked him whether he wanted a woman, and when he was taken out to Airs Parker he said, “This is no h good to me.” In cross-examination this witness said ho had known Mr and Airs Parker for two or throe weeks. He had taken notice of them consorting with prostitutes. Parker had been loafing about and gave the impression of being a “hi u direr ” Constable A. Withers and Constable R. G. Black also gave evidence. The defence of the accused was reserved and. he was committed for trial at the_ Supreme Court. Bail was allowed in the sum of £l5O as previous-