FOUND GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER

Southland Times, Issue 24354, 7 February 1941, Page 6

FOUND GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER

TRIAL AT HAMILTON ENDS (United Press Association) HAMILTON, February 6. The charge of murder against Charles Edward Longley was continued in the Supreme Court at Hamilton today. Charles Ronald Longley, aged 16 years, in evidence, said he was in the kitchen with his father shortly before the tragedy. He had come in to tell his father that O’Sullivan was approaching. He could remember the conversation between O’Sullivan and his mother at the door up to a point where she was called a mongrel. His father, who was standing between the kitchen range and the door of the passage, went out into the passage. The next thing the witness heard was the report of a rifle. Similar evidence was given by Eunice Sylvia Longley, a sister of the previous witness. She had seen her father pick up the rifle and hurry past her. Kathleen O’Sullivan, widow of O’Sullivan, stated that her husband was 52 years of age at the time of the tragedy and enjoyed good health. There were three children aged 16, eight and six years respectively. After their original home was burned down they occupied a cottage on the Taumarunui racecourse at Manunui. A cottage that they owned about a quarter of a mile from the racecourse near the domain was occupied by the Longley family free of rent on the condition that they should carry out certain repairs. The witness claimed that her late husband was a kindly man and very fond of his children. This closed the case for the Crown, the defending counsel intimating that he did not intend to call witnesses. CROWN PROSECUTOR'S ADDRESS An important question, said the Crown Prosecutor, Mr H. T. Gillies, addressing the jury, was simply whether the accused intended to shoot O’Sullivan. It was significant that there was an ominous silence by all the Longley family concerning the event from the moment of the tragedy till the police i arrived. The accused had to travel 90 yards to Mackenzie’s home, and some time elapsed before the accused said: “I never meant to do it.” It seemed a belated attempt on the part of Longley to explain what had happened. Further evidence showed that Longley was a very good shot. He had been out shooting blackbirds the day before. “The accused picked up his rifle, pointed it and fired past his wife to reach a bull’s eye,” Mr Gillies said. It was hardly a matter of importance that O’Sullivan allegedly called Mrs Longley a mongrel. It would require more than that to cause a man to kill.

The question of insanity had not been raised by the defence, concluded Mr Gillies, so that the accused’s actions would have to be judged in the light of those of a sane man.

Opening his address to the jury Mr W. J. King, defending counsel, explained the grounds on which the defence based its case. Longley denied all intention of doing bodily harm to O’Sullivan and he did not know the rifle was loaded. Its discharge was purely accidental. Longley was a neurotic man and his actions differed from those of an ordinary man. The evidence of Senior Sergeant Kelly seemed to show that the rifle had not been cleaned before it was fired. Therefore the Crown could not say that Longley knew the rifle was loaded when he picked it up. COUNSEL S CLAIM There was no witness, said Mr King, who could prove that Longley aimed the rifle at O’Sullivan, nor was it likely that Longley would risk firing a shot intentionally in the narrow passage at the risk of striking his wife, a big woman, who was between O’Sullivan and himself. Under such circumstances Longley could not be convicted of murder, claimed Mr King. The jury would only have to consider the question of manslaughter. Undoubtedly there had been provocation by O’Sullivan while it had to be remembered that Longley was a neurotic and impulsive man. The defence therefore challenged even a charge of manslaughter. After a retirement of four hours the jury found the accused not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter through his negligent handling of a firearm with a strong recommendation to mercy because of his health at the time of the offence. The prisoner was remanded for sentence until the end of the criminal cases. His Honour thanked the jury for its careful attention to the case and said that, after the present week, they would be excused from jury service for two years.