MURDER TRIAL

Southland Times, Issue 22011, 10 May 1933, Page 6

MURDER TRIAL

PAPATOETOE CASE VERDICT OF MANSLAUGHTER RETURNED REMANDED FOR SENTENCE (Per United Press Association.) Auckland, May 9. The trial of Thomas Francis Clark on a charge of murdering Bertha May Bennett at Papatoetoe on January 17 was continued to-day before Mr Justice Smith. Accused’s mother gave evidence that she regarded her son and Mrs Bennett as lovers, and the deceased had told her that she and the accused were going to be married. The accused entered the witness-box and said that when he first knew Mrs Bennett ten years ago he thought Alfred George Hamilton was courting her. She often invited him to visit her place, but he kept away. He first called at the house in September, 1931.' Their friendship grew until he heard a rumour that she was living with Hamilton. He taxed her, and she said Hamilton was nothing to her, only a boarder. They continued on affectionate terms, and he spent practically all his spare time with her. He asked her two or three times whether she had an affection for Hamilton, but she always denied it. He thought that Hamilton, who was his cousin and his best friend, would tell him if he was sharing Mrs Bennett’s bed. There was no secrecy about the proposal that he should marry Mrs Bennett, and it was freely discussed before Hamilton. On New Year’s Eve she told him: “I am yours and yours only.” It was she who proposed marriage to him. He thought the world of her and was ready to marry her at any time. Marriage Papers Obtained. They went to Auckland and he obtained the marriage papers. On the night of her death she again told him that Hamilton was nothing to her. He said he was going to find out and she laughed. He went home and was reading in bed when it suddenly occurred to him to go and find out if there was any truth in what he had heard. The accused described how he found Mrs Bennett and Hamilton in bed and realized that she was unfaithful to her trust and the faith he put in her. He went to another room and there saw a gun. He loaded it and intended shooting himself. He intended to return .to the bedroom to wake the woman up and tell her he was going to shoot himself. He woke her up. She ordered him out and he was so upset and shaking that he did not remember properly what happened. He heard the gun go off and when he came to his senses it was pointing at her. He went to another room, put the other cartridge into the gun and pointed it at his side. He pulled the trigger, but the shot struck his watch and glanced off. He did not then know the woman had been shot. . ■ The accused was cross-examined at length by Mr'.Hubble for the Crown. Mr Northcroft, for the accused, addressing the jury, submitted that the accused was provoked into a sudden passion and there was no intention to murder. He argued that in the circumstances it was neither murder nor manslaughter. Address to Jury.

Mr Northcroft said it was laid down by law that culpable homicide could be reduced to manslaughter, if the person who caused death did so in a fit of sudden passion, caused by provocation. Accordingly, in the present case, there was no murder. The accused saw his intended wife sleeping in the arms of his best friend. That would be a sufficient act or insult to cause him to lose self-control. “If you take a proper view of the facts I most earnestly suggest there are three courses open to you,” said Mr Northcroft. "You can find the accused guilty of murder as the Crown asks you, you can find him guilty of manslaughter on the grounds that there was provocation, or you can find that he had no intention of shooting at all and that the fuel added to the fire by the words of the woman so affected him that he did not know what happened, with the exception that he admits he had a gun in his hands. Mr Hubble said the facts of the case were simple. The accused’s statement was a full confession. He sought to vary it slightly from the witness , box. He had the strongest possible motive for wishing to alter it, but the statement remained as a lucid account which fitted the facts brought out in the evidence. As to provocation, it was not present in that sudden degree to warrant a reduction from culpable homicide to manslaughter. His Honour Sums Up. His Honour said there could be no defence of insanity. In the statement the accused expressed an intention to shoot Mrs Bennett. In evidence he had explained it as a joke. It was for the jury to say whether the explanation should be accepted. Provocation by law had to be a wrongful act or an insult. If the jury found there was a contract to marry it would be justified in saying there had been a wrongful act against the accused. It had to be proved that the wrongful act suffered by the accused was sufficient to rob any ordinary man of self-con-trol before a charge of murder could be reduced to manslaughter. The jury returned after an hour and 20 minutes with a verdict of manslaughter. The accused was remanded for sentence. _______