FATAL STABBING AFFRAY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20870, 9 November 1929, Page 10

FATAL STABBING AFFRAY.

THE AUCKLAND TRAGEDY. TWELVE YEARS’ IMPRISONMENT. (Special to Daily Times.) AUCKLAND, November 8. Twelve years’ imprisonment with hard labour was imposed on George Caffery, aged 34, a quarter-caste negro, who was the central figure in the Nelson street stabbing affray, when Mr Justice Smith pronounced sentence in the Supreme Court this morning. A woman’s heartbroken sobs echoed through the court. The woman, Gallery’s wife, was taken away still crying bitterly, -Caffery was unmoved. After a trial for the murder of Thomas Leavy, which lasted three days, Caffery was found guilty of manslaughter with a strong recommendation to mercy, the jury believing that the whole of the guilt was not Caffery's. “ Your Honor will remember that the verdict of the jury was one of manslaughter with a strong recommendation to mercy, because the jury was of the opinion that the full guilt was not Caf T fery’a,” said Mr Dickson, who represented the prisoner, “If the court comes to the conclusion that there were two parties, then the question arises as to who actually used the knife. There is this outstanding fact: Caffery was undoubtedly under the influence of liquor, and, therefore, it would appear that the whole affray rose out of the fact that he had been drinking. The verdict of manslaughter excludes any possibility of Caffery having gone there for the purpose of knifing this man. His mind was nqt set_ on going to the householder’s place with the idea of using a knife.” His Honor; Not on Leavy. Mr Dickson: No; not on Leavy or on Cole ; His Honor: I do not know so much about that. There were the threats. Mr Dickson; Of course there is no evidence that he went there with a knife. His Honor; There is certainly evidence that he was there at the time the knife was used. In fact, he was quite close to the dead man. Pleading again, Mr Dickson submitted that a short sentence would cover the case. “ By its verdict the jury has indicated that someone else is implicated,”- 1 said Mr Hubble, for the Crown. "Even allowing the benefit of all doubts, there can be no doubt that Caffery took an active part in the affray that led to this man’s death.” * Prisoner at the bar, the jury has found you guilty of manslaughter with a strong recommendation to mercy,” said his Honor. " The reasonable inference from that is that someone else was there. Who that person was it is not for me or any judicial person to say at the present time; but it is clear that Leavy would not have been foully done to death in his own house but for you. If another man was there and had anything to do with the stabbing, it was clear that you took him there following your bent to assault actually with violence, if not to kill. ”It can scarcely be said that Leavy gave you any provocation at all,” con tinned his Honor, “and I tkink that both the Crown Prosecutor and myself went to the lull length we ought to have gone in suggesting to the jury a verdict of manslaughter. I will, however, take the jury’s view that you did not actually do the stabbing. But 1 must take into account that but for you and your violent attitude no crime would have been committed. I can do no other than impose a substantial term of imprisonment. The sentence of the court is that you be sentenced to hard labour for a period of 12 years.”