A SHOOTING AFFRAY

Otago Witness, Issue 3519, 23 August 1921, Page 42

A SHOOTING AFFRAY

THE MAH IA INCIDENT. TIPPING FINED £3O. In the Supreme Court yesterday, before his Honor Mr Justice Sim, Charles Howard Tipping was charged on three counts (1) that, on or about May 14, 1921, at Port Chalmers ho attempted to murder Alfred James Pottinger; (2) with causing actual bodily harm to Pottinger under such circumstances that death having resulted he would have been guilty of manslaughter; (31 of assault so as to cause actual bodily harm. The a< , used pleaded not guilty on each count. Mr A. C. Hanlon defended. CROWN PROSECUTOR’S OPENING. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr F. B. Adams), in opening, said that the accused was the sixth engineer on the steamer Mtallia, berthed at the time at Port Chalmers. Porringer was the fourth engineer. The tiro men had shipped in London and on the voyage were apparently the best of friends. There was no quarrel or argument of any kind between them, and there seemed to be nothing leading up to the shooting other than what occurred on the Saturday afternoon prior to its occurrence. In the Supreme Court on the 17th, before On that afternoon there had been some drinking, and Pottinger took Tipping on board the steamer. They went to the cabin of the fifth engineer (Lockwood), next door to that of the accused. Lockwood was in his cabin, and after seeing the accused, decided that the best thing to do was to get him into bed. He and Pottinger took him into his cabin, undressed him, got him into his pyjamas, and left him in his bunk. Shortly afterwards they heard a noise of bumping, and on returning' to the cabin found the accused performing' somersaults in his bunk. They attempted to quieten him. and in the course of the proceedings he fell from his bunk to the floor, and a, struggle ensiled. Pottinger apparently lay on top of the accused on the settee and held him down. Th e accused got up, there was a rush, and the affair developed into a general light between the accused and Pottinger. There was some variance in the evidence as to just how violent the fight was. 1 he second engineer (Smelbursi) appeared on the scene and ordered Pottinger to leave. Pottinger went to his cabin and got into his pyjamas, . i 11 I r f 1 If>d Ills: r : i Ivin

J and that of Sinethurst were on the other side of the ship, and Sinethurst coming to his cabin, Pottinger went to his door and stood there, just inside, speaking to him about the accused. Pottinger heard Sinethurst call to him to “look out,” and the next thing he knew was feeling a sensation of [A. Pottinger heard no sound of a snot, but collapsed on the floor. A struggle apparently followed bet ween kSnieinurst and the accused, as a result of which Sinethurst eventually secured the revo.ver. When the revolver was taken Lorn him the accused apparently became quite quiet, and when told to go to his cabin be went l'ke a lamb. During the scene of the scuffle in the accused’s cabin the accused was heard to remark that lie would shoot Pottinger. After he had done the shooting Lockwood met him, and the accused was then anxious to know “ if ho had got him,” and would only go to bed after he had found out whether lie had in fact got Pottinger. Lockwood said that the accused at the time appeared to be in a somewnat dazed condition. It appeared from remarks of the accused himself, and from an examination of the cabin, that the accused kept the revolver in a locker, and that when he was left in the cabin after the fight he got out of hie bunk, and, being- unable to find the key, opened the locker with a screwdriver. | According to his own statement he loaded I the revolver. That was a matter of some I importance. It was curious that when the revolver was examined it was found to have two empty shells in the chamber, with a live cartridge between them. Whether the accused did, in fact, load the revolver or whether it was previously loaded it might be impossible to say. If it were proved that he did load it that would prove that he was in a frame of mind in which he could conceive a purpose and carry it out with some care, the loading' of a revolver, as they all knew, j being a somewhat delicate operation. ! Mr Adams first called Pottinger. Witness declared that he was sober throughout the whole episode. He had had no drink from the time he first left the accused in the Marine Hotel before tea. To Mr Hanlon: There was no doubt about the friendship between the accused and himself. There was none so far as he was concerned. He had gone periodically to visit the accused in gaol. He had seen a man in Gibraltar in the same condition as Tipping had got into at Port Chalmers. If Tipping had been in his sane senses he would not have done the things he did. He did not seem to take any notice of them, or to know what he was saying. I hief Detective Bishop. Dr Edgar, and Detective Beer gave evidence, and the evidence of Smetburst- and Lockwood in the lower court, was read by tile registrar. MR HANLON’S ADDRESS. Mr Hanlon, in addressing the jury, said the first count charged the accused with attempted murder, and as that was a particularly serious charge he would deal with it first. After traversing the evidence of the other two engineers, Mr Hanlon pointed out than this all went to show that the accused had lost control of his senses for the time being, and he could not therefore be said to be capable of forming a criminal intent jto murder. Dealing with the charge cf assaulting Porringer so as to cause him actual bodily harm, learned counsel submitted that it was also necessary to prove intent before this count could stand. To bring in a verdict of guilty it had to be shown in the words of the Statute that the accused’s action was intentional. Proceeding, Mr Hanlon said that the second charge against the accused—viz., that if Pottinger had died he would have been guilty of manslaughter—was not quite so simple, and the maximum punishment for it was not so severe as in tho other cases. At the same time it was difficult to say that a man who had _ lost control of his senses should be convicted of manslaughter. He put it as strongly as ho could that this was the only possible count upon which the accused could be convicted; but in any event a sadder case than the present could scarcely be found. The accused was a respectable young man, who had been on friendly terms with his shipmates during the voyage, arid there was no reason on earth why he should have desired to take the life of this man Pottinger. THE JURY'S VERDICT. His "Honor summed up and the jury retired, returning half an hour later with a verdict of “not guilty” on the first and third counts and “guilty” on the second. A rider was added that in the opinion of the jury the surrounding circumstances contributed to the dazed condition of the prisoner, and therefore a strong recommendation was made for leniency. Mr Hanlon said the accused had joined the Imperial forces at the age of 18 years, and served three years in Mesopotamia, and afterwards in India. On being demobilised he joined the marine. His conduct and bearing at all times were quite exemplary, and such a deed as attempted murder was quite foreign to his nature. Mr Hanlon went on to &ay that Tipping had already suffered considerable punishment, as he recognised that he had done wrong and elected to remain in prison for three months, although bail could readily have been found for him here among the shipping people. His Honor said the jury, by its verdict, had acquitted the accused of any intention either to kill or assault Pottinger, and in finding him guilty on the second count they had also made a strong recommendation to mercy. In view of the finding and the recommendation of the jury, and the fact that the prisoner had already been in gaol for three months, he thought he was justified in inflicting a monetary fine which would cover the cost to the country of the prosecution. The prisoner would he ordered to pay a fine of £3O. Mr Hanlon : “I will undertake to pay that amount forthwith, your Honor.”