WOMAN’S DEATH

Southland Times, Issue 23335, 20 October 1937, Page 11

WOMAN’S DEATH

Husband Found Not Guilty Of Murder INSANE AT TIME OF TRAGEDY I (United Press Association) DUNEDIN, October 19. A verdict of not guilty because of insanity was returned by the jury today in the trial before the Supreme Court of Arthur Richardson, a labourer, of Berwick, for the murder of his w “®- Mr Justice Kennedy presided. Mr r. B. Adams conducted the case for the Crown and Mr O. G. Stevens appeared for the defence. The jury retired late in the afternoon and returned with its verdict after barely 15 minutes. The prisoner was ordered to be detained in strict custody until the pleasure of the Minister of Justice was made known. , Giving evidence for the defence Dr Malcolm Brown, acting superintendent of the Seacliff Mental Hospital, said he had had 16 years’ experience in mental cases. Two months after accused s committal he came under witness’s control. He was convalescent and under full parole and was well spoken and conducted. Witness saw Richardson on August 9 last. He was still a sick man and no sign of gross mental disorder could be seen. With the knowledge he had of mental history he would say it was probable that accused would be committable if he drank heavily. He had examined him twice weekly since. His condition was one of mental enfeeblement, following abuse of alcohol over a long period of years. Richardson had an amnesia for crime—in other words loss of memory for that period. It was not a sharp-cut loss of memory and it appeared to have come on more or less gradually sipce the afternoon of July 17. Where it ended was very difficult to say because his mental condition was complicated by the fact that after the crime he was suffering from a severe gunshot wound. DISORDERED CONSCIOUSNESS Witness was satisfied that amnesia was genuine and gave as his opinion that at the time of the crime he was in a condition of disordered consciousness of such a nature that he would not know the quality of his act. Mr Adams: Do you consider at the time he knew what he was doing?—He would know the physical quality of his action—that he was putting a gun together and putting cartridge- in it. And he would know what he was doing when he took a kitbag and got his gun?—Yes, he would know in a dreamy sort of way. He would not have the knowledge of the act that an ordinary person would have. After putting the gun together would he know in the same way that he was taking a cartridge from his pocket and putting it in the gun?—He might. In his summing up his Honour said that the burden of proof of the crime was on the Crown, but that that was on the assumption that accused was sane at the time of the alleged offence. The burden of proving insanity in a legal sense, if that were defence, rested upon the defence. He reviewed the evidence saying that it had been shown that accused did kill his wife, but it remained to be decided whether or not he did mean to kill her. The defence was that at that time he was legally insane and the question to be decided by the jury, if it did agree that the crime itself was committed by accused beyond all doubt, was not whether accused was sane or insane in the medical sense at that time, not whether he was certifiable or uncertifiable, but whether he was sane or insane in the legal sense. LAW QUOTED His Honour quoted law and pointed out that in this case there was no question of natural imbecility. He touched upon incidents in accused’s previous life which had been produced in evidence and upon opinions of medical experts and advised the jury that it had two findings open to it—guilty or not guilty because of insanity. After a retirement of barely 15 minutes the jury returned with a verdict of not guilty because of insanity. It had found that accused was insane at the time of the tragedy and declared that it acquitted him on the grounds of insanity. His Honour ordered that the prisoner should be kept in strict custody at Paparoa prison until the pleasure of the Minister of Justice was made known.