DRAMATIC TRIAL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20701, 26 April 1929, Page 19

DRAMATIC TRIAL.

FATHER KILLS SON. i AQUITTED OF MURDER. SOBS IN COURT. (From Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, April 18. ‘Although there has been feelings of doubt wheth Alfred Wrigley Ellis, who killed his son, the well-known Sydney jockey, should escape punishment altogether, there were many expressions of relief when his brief trial resulted in his acquittal on a charge of murder. Since the tragic night of March 15, when the fatal quarrel took place, Ellis, sen., has been a pathetic figure, and there has been profound sympathy for his wife and daughter. On the morning of the trial Ellis arrived early at the court and with his head buried in his hands, he sobbed bitterly. He started as his name rang through the corridors. He walked steadily to the dock, but he was obviously distressed when he stood up. Hia lips quivered jvhile the charge of murder /as read out, and he answered almost inaudibly, “ Not guilty.” Standing with his eyes downcast during most of the time while the jury was being sworn in, he raised them quickly as he challenged five men. Ellis was in tears, with a handkerchief to his face, while the Crown Prosecutor recited the circumstances in which young Ellis met his death. The Crown Prosecutor said that it was a very painful case, .id the crime, if such it be, was brought about by the temper of the accused actuated by drink. The allegations were that the unfortunate hoy was struck in the neck by the accused with a glass. Although the charge was murder, it was competent for the jury to find that it was manslaughter, if the circumstances pointed that way. Further, accused was entitled to acquittal if the act was purely accidental. When Mrs Ellis stepped into the witness box she was reminded that she was not bound to give evidence against her husband, but she elected to say all she knew about the affair. “ I had better give the evidence I gave in the coroner’s court,” she said simply. Her evidence occupied 10 minutes. Ellis appeared to be overcome v.’-en he arose to make a statement. He nervously fingered the‘rail before him, and after the words, “ Gentlemen of the jury,” he strove valiantly for more than a minute to recover his self-possession. Then, sorrowfully and haltingly he proceeded, “I didn’t murder my son It was an accident. If the boy had not rushed me it would never have occurred. I admit throwing the glass at him, but there was no intention to more than frighten him. I have had a few things to put up with, but he was a very good boy, and I have nothing to say against him. When I thre' the ale at him the boy got me by the arm. I turned round and he rushed me, and my arm, with the glass in it, went up and his neck came on to the glass.” - The judge’s summing up was distinctly in favour of the accused. The first thing the jury should have in mind was that the father and son were on got-. mis. ’ veryone admitted that the deceased was a very fine boy indeed, mid there was no reason why the father should want to do away with him. “No one.for a moment will say that he intended to kill his son,” said his Honor. “ His punishment already must be very great. We have the greatest sympathy for them both, but you must bring in a verdi'- 1 according to the facts of the cfse.” It did not take the jury long to bring in a verdict which meant the acqu of Ellis. When discharging Ellis the juclm? said to him: “ I am quite sure that what you have passed through is quite suliicient punishment for anything that you have done. Ido not know what I would have done with you had the jury found you guilty. However, .lie i y has solved that difficulty.” Before the judge could proceed further, if such were his intention, Ellis, who had been crying bitterly, collapsed, and had to be assiste. from the court. Many of his friends waited to greet him outside the courthouse, but he was escorted through a little-used exit and hurried away by. a motor car. He did not meet his wife after the verdict was announced.