SUPREME COURT

New Zealand Times, Volume XLII, Issue 9738, 14 August 1917, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

CRIMINAL SITTINGS ACQUITTED ON A CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER. Tho criminal sittings were continued yesterday before Mr Justice Hosking. Mr V. 11. Meredith appeared as Crown Prosecutor. William Reynolds was charged with having on May 30th last, at Wellington, committed tho manslaughter of Bertie Parker. There were other counts to tho indictment, charging tho prisoner with inflicting bodily harm and common assault. Mr H. F. O’Leary appeared for tho prisoner, who pleaded not guilty. The facts of the case in connection with the prosecution have been fully stated in connection with the proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court. On the date mentioned there was a sordid squabble outside of the To Aro Hotel at tho corner of AVillis and Dixon streets. The wife of the deceased alleged that improper overtures were made to her and a companion by the accused; the deceased took umbrage and he was felled to the ground by the accused, who designated l him a “bludger.” His head struck the roadway heavily and ho subsequently died at tho hospital from hemorrhage of the brain. Two independent witnesses viewed the occurrence. Accused when arrested did. not seek to, shield himself, but stated that Parker deserved all he got for the part he had played. Ethel Parker, wife of the deceased, denied in cross-examination that she was - out on , the evening in q nation in pursuance of an immoral avocation. When asked whether she had been convicted of soliciting prostitution in 1913 she declined to answer. “Wore you not convicted on three occasions of thoft at Hamilton, Auckland and Taihapo?”—“l ,decline tt> answer any of those questions.” “Had you any drink that evening?” —“Two drinks.”, “You were a little excited?” —“Yes; a little.” Mr O’Leary offered evidence for the defence the general trend of which was that an altercation took place between accused and Parker. The aggressor was Parker, and Reynolds merely acted' in self-defence, returning blow for blow. The accused, giving evidence, stated that he was accosted by Mrs Parker, who wanted: him to go with her. He declined, and she knocked his hat off. Witness said, “Are you looking for trouble?” and Parker then came up and said “Are you?'.’ He added exceedingly offensive expressions, and proceeded to assault witness. Reynolds said ho only struck one blow in return; Ho explained that he was a salesman, and was a returned soldier, having come back on March 16th. Ho denied that he made overtures to Airs Parker and a woman companion. The beginning of the affair was that Parker came up to him, and told him that he was wanted, and he went across the road and found Airs- Parker. Ho did not remember using the word “bludgcr,” but he may have done so, and he may have said that ho would ‘treat other bludgers in tho same way . Cross-examined, accused said he was sober, and h© had gone to meet a fellow-lodger named Charles Gough at 8.30 p.m., at the comer of Willis and Dixon streets. When he was accosted by Parker be was' on the hotel corner. When his hat was . knocked off he stepped on to the road, and Parker followed him. Parker hit him twice on the shoulder and the back of the neck. Tho blows' were not severe. Witness turned round, and as Parker inade another lunge at him he hit back. When arrested he did not mention that h© was hit first. Samuel E. Maokay, aged seventeen, cadet in the Government Insurance Department, stated that ho was company .with two friends named Mardon and Hartstonge, going ,up Willis street, when ho saw Reynolds and Parker approaching a woman at the corner of Willis and Dixon streets. The woman afterwards was talking in a high tone of voice, and knocked Reynolds’s hat off. Then Parker hit Reynolds. The latter went on to the road, and Parker again attempt'd to hit him, wherupon Reynolds retaliated. When hit, Parker had his fists up. Parker called Reynolds a ‘ bastard” when ho hit him. , . Beaumont Jones, salesman, m tri employ of R. Hannah and Co., Ltd., said he was coming down Willis street when he saw Airs Parker strike Reynolds. Then Parker wanted to fight. . , , Walter A. Alardon, aged eighteen, clerk in the Government Insurance Department, heard Airs Parker say to the accused: “You have insulted y husband,” and saw her hit him three times. Parker then' wont for Reynolds, and a soldier intervened Afterwards witness saw Parker fall down as the result of a blow. He never saw Parker strike Reynolds. His Honour,, in summing up, said that if the, story of Reynolds was true, Parker was the aggressor, and Reynolds had acted with admirable selfrestraint after he was struck hy the woman and her husband. ' But there was other evidence that Reynolds had followed Parker up. In such an event Reynolds mulst he looked upon as the aggressor. The matter could be decided quite apart from monv of the woman. If Reynolds had not to deliver. ' the blow he dia in self-defence, it was an unlawful blow. The jury, with less than half an hour’s retirement, returned with a verdict of “Not guilty,” and the accused was discharged. ■ The court adjourned until 10 a.m. to-day. '