VERDICT OF GUILTY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23017, 21 October 1936, Page 3

VERDICT OF GUILTY

CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER THE PALMERSTON FATALITY RECOMMENDATION TO MERCY A verdict of guilty on the first count with a strong recommendation to mercy was returned by the jury yesterday in the case in which Richard Corrigan, aged 51, was charged in the Supreme Court with manslaughter and, alternatively, with assault causing actual bodily harm. The charges arose out of the death of George Stuart Neish at Palmertson on August 26, and the allegation of the Crown was that he died as the result of a kick on the head inflicted by Corrigan, following a quarrel at the accused’s house where drink was consumed. The case against the accused was conducted by the Crown Prosecutor (Mr F. B. Adams), and Mr J. G.- Warrington appeared for the defence. EVIDENCE CONTINUED Asked by Mr Warrington whether Mrs Corrigan warned Neish several times while they were at her home that he would have to keep quiet, Alexander Erholm, who continued his evidence, replied: “Not to my knowledge.” Mr Warrington: Did she tell him that if he did not keep quiet he would have to go out? Witness: There was nothing like that so far as I know.

Witness added that, when Corrigan said “ I put him out for a while ” or something like that, he understood that Corrigan had told Neish not to come in again. Witness took no more out of it than that. Corrigan told witness not to give Neish any money, but witness did not say “ He (Neish) beats me every time I have come over.” Erholm added that he provided most of the money for the liquor they had had prior to the night of the fatality. He denied that he fell over Neish s feet when they were putting him in the car. On their arrival at Neish’s hut Corrigan must have pulled Neish out of the car by the feet. > Erholm denied that he had ever had a quarrel with Neish. Ronald William Grafton, who formerly lived near Corrigan at Palmerston, said that at about 9 o’clock on the night of August 26 he heard the sound of a quarrel, and someone said: “ Get out, get out. If you come back again I'll knock your head off.” He also heard a scuffle up against a wooden building. The same voice was speaking all the time, and it sounded angry. Charles Dickson, a baker, of Palmerston, gave evidence with respect to the time at which Corrigan’s car returned home on the night of the fatality, and Douglas James Swanson, a railway porter, described how he went to Neish’s hut at Erholm’s summons, and found the deceased lying at the door. It would be 1.15 when he summoned the police. Constable Kelly, of Palmerston, detailed the action taken by the police immediately afterwards. Detective Sergeant Hall, who was in charge of the investigations, said he found abrasions and blood on the accused’s hands. He produced the statements made by the accused, who denied attacking Neish. When arrested on September 13 the accused said, on hearing the charge: "That's-not right anyway.” Witness later examined Erholm’s clothes and shoes and found no trace of blood. This concluded the case for the Crown, and Mr Warrington announced that he did not intend to call evidence. ADDRESSES TO JURY

Addressing the jury, Mr Adams said that the case was one in which there was a feature common in criminal cases—namely, there was no witness who could say that he actually saw the accused strike or kick the deceased. The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, and the question for the jury was simply whether, taking all the facts into consideration and drawing from them such inferences as were reasonable and proper, it was satisfied that the Crown had proved its case. Counsel suggested that the evidence of Dr D’Ath would leave the jury in no doubt that Neish died as the result of a violent blow or impact upon the top of his, skull, and the remaining question to be decided was whether the accused was responsible. Counsel discussed at length the evidence of Dr D’Ath, who had said that the injuries were consistent with having been caused by Corrigan’s right boot and that nails in the boot corresponded with marks on Neish’s head. If Dr D’Ath were wrong or if his opinion could be seriously challenged, said Mr Adams, the defence might have been expected to put forward some competing evidence, but it left the evidence unchallenged in this as on every other point. Counsel invited the jury to accept the fact that the boot was a thing . which could have made precisely the marks found. When it was realised that there were two groups of nails exactly corresponding with the marks, was it necessary to go much further in order to show the connection? Was it necessary to go round looking for a box which might .have nails precisely spaced as were those on the boot, in order to raise some hypothetical theory? Mr Adams suggested that it was clear that it was the voice of Corrigan which was heard raised in anger by a witness who was 200 yards away, though Corrigan denied that he left the house with Neish. Why had the accused thought fit to deny left the house? The fact that he had done so was sufficient in itself to show his guilt. Counsel suggested that the accused had inflicted a brutal blow on a man who was down or nearly down at the time. At first Corrigan pretended that he had no knowledge of the fact that Neish was injured, but, when later asked for an explanation of the blood on his hands, he said, “ I must have got it when I lifted Neish into the car. I saw some blood and felt some on the side of his head as I was lifting him in.” That was the statement of a man who an hour or two earlier had denied knowing that Neish was injured. It showed that Corrigan’s first act had been to lie. It was common ground that Neish was injured to some extent at Corrigan’s place, and that it was Corrigan who went to the door when Neish wen* from the kitchen. It followed that what happened between the time Neisn left the kitchen and was next seen bv Erholm lay between Neish and Corrigan, and they had the evidence of a warning voice in that interval issuing threats. There was no reason to suspect Erholm of any complicity and. indeed, he was exonerated by Corrigan’s own statement. Even if Erholm were involved, however, that would not be a defence to the charge. The jury might ask itself whether Neish’s injuries were the result of drunken struggling about the place or whether they were caused by violence. Counsel submitted that there was only one possible conclusion—that the fatal injury was caused by Corrigan’s boot, and the marks on the skull were decisive on that point. CASE FOR THE DEFENCE

For the accused, Mr Warrington said that a conviction on circumstantial evidence was justified only when that evidence pointed unmistakably to one conclusion. There was evidence that a man over 200 yards away heard threats, but it was remarkable that Erholm, who was only 20ft away heard nothing. In any case it was one thing to threaten and another to do, and the evidence of such a threat, even if it were made by Corrigan, did not establish that he carried it out. Into the words, “I put him out for a while,” alleged to have been used by Corrigan, no other meaning could be read excep; that Neish had been put out of the house, “Erholm thought nothipg more of it than that,” said counsel. “ Whv should you? ” With respect to the evidence of Dr D’Ath, who had declared that the injury to the top of the head was consistent with a kick from Corrigan’s boot, the Crown Prosecutor had asked

whether it was necessary to go further. Mr Warrington suggested that it certainly was necessary. The jury had the right to ask that the Crown should exclude any other reasonable possibility. What happened while Neish was out of the house alone? As he was a drunken man, he might have fallen a dozen times. What happened when he was thrust unceremoniously into the car? What happened when he was pulled out feet first? What happened when Erholm, a small, drunk man, dragged a 16-stone man down a bank, through a narrow gateway, and along a winding track to the hut? What happened while Erholm was asleep in the hut? The possibility that Neish got up and fell among the litter round the hut was a possibility which could not be ruled but.

Out of a chaos of possibilities, said Mr Warrington, the Crown could give only a doctor’s theory. If that theory was correct, the jury must make some sweeping assumptions. The first was that all the injuries were received at one time, and the second was that the kick was delivered exactly in accordance with Dr D’Ath’s theory. The doctor had marked particular sets of nails which fitted in with the injuries on the scalp, but what of all the other nails? They did not fit in with the theory. Counsel suggested that the jury should examine the boot. If it did so it would see that certain hobnails were even more prominent than those alleged to have caused the injury. Why were no marks caused by them? Dr D’Ath explained that by suggesting that the kick was dealt in a certain manner. The acceptance •of this explanation, however, involved making a lot of assumptions. The third assumption that the jury would have to make if it were to convict, added Mr Warrington, was that no other object could possibly have inflicted the fatal injury: the fourth was that every skin cell and piece of hair that might have been on the boot was removed by the grass; and the fifth was that the blood on the left boot had less to do with the accident than the blood-on the right boot. A sixth assumption was that a 16-stone man received his fatal injuries in or about a little shed, lapsed into almost immediate urtconsciousness. and then, in some mysterious way, was transported by the small man Corrigan and deposited some distance away. In this respect it had to be remembered that there were no signs of dragging. The final assumption was that the kick to the scalp was administered in or around the shed and yet left no bloodstains in the shed or in the back seat of the car. To convict, the jury must go further than the doctor. He said that the injury was consistent with haying been caused by the boot, but the jury must decide that it had been caused by Corrigan and in no other way. After his Honor had summed up, the jury retired at 3.53. and returned 40 minutes later with a verdict of guilty on the charge of manslaughter, with a strong recommendation to mercy. ~ „ . His Honor said he would attach weight to the recommendation. He remanded the prisoner until to-mor-row morning for sentence.