BANK FATALITY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23118, 18 February 1937, Page 10

BANK FATALITY

CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY GRAND JURY’S PRESENTMENT (Peb United Press Association) INVERCARGILL, Feb. 17. » A verdict of not guilty was returned by the jury this afternoon in the case in which Oswald Cameron Cowie. a bank clerk, aged 17, was charged with manslaughter, and the accused was discharged. The charge arose out of the shooting tragedy on the morning of December 7, when, following a visit by Tangi Kitson, William Marlin Robertson, Michael Fletcher and William Thomas M'Quarrie, four young men. to the premises of the Bank of New Zealand at Invercargill, Fletcher was shot and killed. The evidence of Kitson and M'Quarrie, both of whom accompanied the deceased and Robertson to the bank premises, was on similar lines to that given in the low’er court, though in crossexamination by counsel for the accused it was shown that all four men had indulged in liquor prior to going lo the bank, where they had spent time in further drinking and listening to music. Both stated that though Wyatt was under the influence of liquor Cowie was perfectly sober. They detailed the circumstances leading up to the production of the revolver by Wyatt, and its subsequent disappearance, and to the preparations for leaving the premises when Wyatt pointed out that he was expecting a visit from the manager, and, therefore, they had better leave. .... Both witnesses said they did not hear any scuffle or argument prior to the first revolver shot. At the time both were at the doorway. They ran away a few' yards, and, finding Fletcher missing, came back and discovered him unconscious. M'Quarrie stated that he Had a bank revolver and cartridges separately in his pockets, and he took them out and threw then into a shrub in the gardens. . , , , Edw'ard Allan Wyatt, a bank clerk, said’ that when the door bell was rung lie was merry, but not drunk. He went down and opened the door, M'Quarrie stating that he knew Leslie Nicoll, who used to be in the bank. They all walked into the basement and then upstairs. Witness said that when he produced a revolver M'Quarrie came r.nd took it. He could not say where he went after that. During the evening he had asked them several times to leave, but he did not remember them actually leaving. He could not remember anything that happened on the stairs or at the foot. There was no telephone in the residential quarters, and in case of emergency they, would have to go dowmstairs and into the office to use it. Constable Summers said that when the accused rushed into the watchhouse he was much excited, taut perfectly sober. He said he had shot a man, who, with three others, were on the bank premises and had another revolver. Witness detailed the injuries he had noticed on Wyatt’s face and hand. It looked as if a blow had caused his teeth to cut his lips. In his address to the jux-y the Crown Prosecutor asked; Did the accused fire the shot which caused Fletcher’s death? If the jury was not satisfied he did. then that was the end of the case. If it was satisfied he did, however, then it would consider whether anything justified or excused his firing the shot. If his conduct w'as excusable, then the accused should be acquitted, but if there was no excuse, then, putting sentiment aside, it was the jury’s duty to find a verdict of guilty. The position was that the accused said he did fire the shot that killed Fletcher and had sworn on oath that he fired the shot. In these circumstances the jury must find their answer to that question in the affirmative. On matters of justification or excuse there was no question qf accident. The accused Hired the shot and said he fired it at Fletcher. In the second place, there was no question of self-defence. Fletcher was not threatening the accused, but was trying to get out of the door. “ It can only be characterised as an act of insensate folly,” said the Crown Prosecutor, who drew attention to the difference between the statement made to the police by the accused and his evidence in the lower court.

For the defence, Mr A. C. Hanlon, who called no evidence, said he would ask the jury whether it had been proved to its entire satisfaction that the accused fired the fatal shot. Although the Crown Prosecutor haa challenged the veracity of the accused's statements, counsel put it to the jury that the accused’s statement to the police was not necessarily conclusive. The position the jury was in was to find whether the evidence proved that the accused fired the fatal shot, not as to what he had said in his statement or in his evidence in the lower court. Someone else might have fired the fatal shot, counsel suggested. Wyatt, in the ambulance, had said repeatedly that he did not want the accused to lose his job and admitted that “he did it.” What did that mean? Could Wyatt, if he were in the dock, be convicted on his admission? Then, should the accused, because of his admission, be convicted? None of the witnesses had sworn that the accused fired the shot or saw him fire it. Was the accused, and the accused only, guilty of the offence? “At the bank we are told there was just a friendly argument. Yet one of the men took off his coat and punched Wyatt on the jaw,” said Mr Hanlon. ‘ The evidence showed that Wyatt was badly knocked about. The four men who" visited the bank were in a mood to be cantankerous and would not leave when asked to go by Wyatt. “ The accused knew that one of the men had got hold of a revolver and cartridges and was x-eally frightened as to what would happen. That was probabjy the reason why he went and got Wyatt’s revolver and put it in his "pocket for protection.” Mr Hanlon commented on the leaving of mere youths in charge of a bank, armed with revolvers. What were revolvers given to them for? he asked. Were they to protect the bank property or themselves? There must be something wrong, he said, when two youths were given revolvers with no instructions in their use. Such a practice ought to be stopped. What had it led up to? That terrible tragedy. Summing up, his Honor said the sole question the jury must determine was whether the accused killed a human being by an unlawful act. If he shot the deceased, was the shooting in the circumstances unlawful? Generally speaking, it was an unlawful thing for any person to discharge a revolver at another. It was very important that liberty should not be interfered with, but in the view of the law it was equally important that human beings should not be wrongfully deprived of life, and the law allowed it only in exceptional cases. Was there any attack at the final stage upon Wyatt? Was force used to prevent an attack upon him? There was no one in contact with him, no threats had been made, and the revolver had not been produced or used. Finally, fear did not make an act committed under its influence lawful if it was otherwise. The unlawful issue was: Had it been found that the accused shot the deceased, and was the shooting an unlawful act? The jury retired at 4.20 p.m. and returned at 5.12 with a verdict of not guilty. After discharging Cowie, his Honor read a presentment made by the grand jury. It stated: “That this grand jury recommends that no minor should be left as the guardian of a building with access to firearms.”