WESTPORT MURDER CASE.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 11856, 21 May 1909, Page 3

WESTPORT MURDER CASE.

CONNELLY SENTENCED TO TEN ; YEARS. (Per Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCHi, last- night. The Westpoi-t murder trial has concluded Hanlon, cloAin^ his address in Connelly's defence, said that the cane against him had completely broken down, and -the guilt of Ha Li mm and Anderson had been proved up to the hilt. Ha urged that Connelly's confession was a miastatement. Mr Stringer, for the Crown,' addressed the jury, traversing the whole of the case and analysing the evidence in replying to the case , tor the defet\ce. He also minutely analysed Connelly's original story regarding il.illinexi. and Anderson's connection with BourkVe death, saying the statements were unworthy of belief and the two sailors previously convicted and pardoned, had . nothing to do with the killing of Bourke. After Mr A. C. Hanlon and Mr Stringer., K.C., had addressed the jury, his:- Honor summed up favorably on the Crdwn's theory tliat Connelly was guilty of manslaughter. - The' following issues were submitted to the jury, which "retired at 5.33 p.m. : (1) Is accused guilty or not guilty* if yes (2) is he guilty of murder or (3) is he guilty of manslaughter? (A) if 3011 find him guilty of either then do you \ find it proved that he was assisted as alleged in his original written statement s The jury Teturned at 8.53 p.m. with the following replies : To No. 1 ' "Guilty," to No. 2 "Not guilty of murder," to No. 3 "Guilty of manslaughter," and to No. 4 "No." The jury added they desired to express a very strong recommendation to mercy. The prisoner stated he was 19,years of age, and had nothing to' say s why sentence should not be passed on him. His Honor said, addressing Connolly, that after a very careful trial, in respect to which he (Connelly) h&d received every assistance that he could expect from counsel, he had "been found guilty of manslaughter. The jury Had also found that he had failed to establish the defence he had set up that Hallinen and Anderson had been with him. Considering the history of the case, His Honor thought he ought to express his entire concurrence with the jury on all these points. It had been impossible to listen to the evidence in the case without coming to the conclusion that the verdict of the Hokitika jury was justified, ;and it was clear that a true- account of the transaction was that disclosed in the confession -which the prisoner had somewhat belatedly made. The jury had taken a favorable view of prisoner's action in reebmmeriding him to mercy. They must be assumed to have found that prisoner acted possibly under the influence of-^ttquof ana certainly without any realisation of the consequence of his brutality. As to that and to prisoner's age His Honor _ thought he ought to give effect. NevertheleßS, prisoner's offence had been 'a wry serious one; indeed, young as he ■was, he had already had a, career' of crime. He (His* Honor) must inflict a substantial sentence— a sentence which to some extent would go beyond the one he was already serving. His Honor sentenced prisoner to ten years' im : prisonment, the sentence to be concurrent with the sentence imposed on him ;for penury . , Hss -Honor thanked the jury for the obvious care and attention they had brought to this very important case. It would probably be a satisfaction to them to feel that their verdict conformed to a previous verdict and placed bevond all reasonable doubt the true nature of the transaction and finally removed any stigma attaching to Hallineen and 'Anderson. Their verdict attached no stigma to the jury . which dealt with the case in Nelson.