MAORI AFFRAY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23330, 23 October 1937, Page 8

MAORI AFFRAY

GUILTY ON LESSER CHARGE JURY FINDS "INTENSE PROVOCATION " REMANDED FOR SENTENCE A verdict of guilty of breaking into the dwelling of Paana Reweti Porete (Fuller Pollett) and annoying him and other persons "owing to intense provocation" was returned in. the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon against Ira Panapa Porete, commonly known as Ned Pollett. The charge was the fifth of seven which were brought against the accused as the consequence of an affray at Moeraki on the night of July 2, the more serious charges being attempted murder, wounding, assault with intent to cause actual bodily harm, and causing actual bodily harm. Porete was acquitted on the major charges, and the jury, which took more than three hours to consider its verdict, recommended that he be bound over to keep the peace. He was remanded in custody until Wednesday morning for sentence. His Honor Mr Justice Kennedy presided. Mr F. B. Adams conducted the case for the Crown, and the accused was represented by Mr C. J. L. White.

When the hearing was continued yesterday morning, Mr White concluded his address to the jury. He said that the accused had gone to his brother's house merely with a request for the return of his furniture. He suggested that hostilities might well have been opened by the brother, after which the accused might easily have lost his temper. "The accused went to the house in a peaceful frame of mind, was given a hostile reception, and received the first wound in the affray," Mr White said, and contended that all the window-breaking was done before the accused returned to the house after his first reception. In that case, it was the accused's brother who went out of the house looking for trouble and who had manufactured the evidence of another broken window as a reason for his action. It was suggested, also, by Mr White, that the shot fired by Fuller Pollett was not merely a warning shot but was a deliberate attempt to injure the accused. Up to that time, the accused had made no attempt to hurt his brother. It was not reasonable to expect the jury to believe that the accused attacked his brother, who was armed and had shown that he was v prepared to use his arms. Much the more likely story was that of the accused, that his brother, Fuller, had fired a shot and then run down looking for trouble. Mr White then outlined the sequence of the wounds received. to show that the accused had received serious cuts on the head and shoulders before Fuller Pollett was hurt at all. "I suggest that all the violence in this affray was instigated by Fuller Pollett." Mr White said.

Mr White traced a hypothetical case of murder against Fuller Pollett. "Let us imagine that the accused had been killed and that his brother was standing his trial for murder," he said. "I suggest that, he would have had no real defence, and that all the resources of the Crown would have been brought forward in an attempt to hang him. But he did not kill the accused, and now it is the latter who is being given the whole responsibility for the affray, while his brother goes scot free. It is grbssly unfair." Mr White summarised the evidence and said that the accused was the man who had been the victim of the assault. The whole affair had been forced upon him, and the evidence of fact all supported the contention that it was Fuller Pollett and not the accused who was the aggressor. After his Honor had summed up, the jury retired at 11.36 o'clock. It returned at 2.45 o'clock with its verdict.