BLACKSMITH AND HOTEL PORTER

Southland Times, Issue 25514, 7 November 1944, Page 3

BLACKSMITH AND HOTEL PORTER

ATTEMPTED MURDER CHARGE FAILS

(P.A.) AUCKLAND, November 6. In the Supreme Court today John Leslie Florance, aged 33, a hotel porter, and Herbert Lorraine Woodham, aged 28, a blacksmith, stood trial before Mr Justice Fair on a charge of the attempted murder of Constable Richard William Meyer, and on alternative counts that, with intent to disable, they discharged a firearm at him, that they did the constable grievous bodily harm, that they did him actual bodily harm and that they assaulted him. They were also charged with an attempt to break and enter the premises of the Wholesale Clearing House with intent to commit a crime.

Mr Meredith, for the Crown, said evidence would be led to the effect that in the early morning of August 11 Constable Meyer, who was on duty in Karangahape road, heard the sound of breaking glass near the doorway of the Wholesale Clearing House. He saw the accused Florance standing on the kerb. Florance told the constable that he “was just taking the air.” Later two men, one of whom was alleged to be Woodham, and the other was at present unknown, approached the constable.. Counsel said the constable would say he knew Florance personally and would identify Woodham as one of the men. He would also testify that he was taking the three men to the police station when Florance and the unknown man ran away. Constable Meyer would say that as he struggled with Woodham the prisoner called out to the others for assistance and that the unknown man came back and joined in the struggle. The constable would also say that Florance came back and stood off while he struggled with the other two. He would say farther that he glimpsed Florance put his right hand in his coat pocket and later in the struggle he noticed Florance with his right arm extended and something shining in his hand. At this time Woodham and the other man were attacking him and raining blows on his head. As he was falling he heard a sound like a revolver shot. The constable was dazed and remembered no more till he was roused by a taxi driver. The constable was aware of a pain in his left elbow and later found he had a bullet wound there, as well as bruises and cuts about the head and face. No evidence was called for the defence. CASE FOR DEFENCE Mr Jenkins, counsel for Florance, submitted that the evidence had failed to prove the essential ingredients in the charges. There was no proof that Florance was in any way associated with the broken glass and none that he had any intention to murder. Mr Brainsby, counsel for Woodham, questioned the evidence of the identification of Woodham, and said there had certainly been no common design to murder. On the question of identification his Honour said that so far as Florance was concerned the jury might think there was really no room for any doubt. The identification of Woodham was perhaps not quite so strong. Many circumstances pointed to Florance being joined with the other two in what they were doing at the time. On the count of attempted murder it would be reasonable for the jury to hold that Florance did not really intend to take the constable’s life and both men should be acquitted of that, said his Honour. It seemed a reasonable possibility that Florance intended to disable the constable or to intimidate him by firing close. If the intention was merely to intimidate the accused would be not guilty of intent to disable, his Honour continued. As to the charge of assault there could be no doubt of Woodham’s intention to hit Constable Meyer with his fists, but there might be some room for doubt of Florance’s intention to hit him with a bullet. JURY’S VERDICT

The jury found both men guilty of attempted breaking and entering with intent and both not guilty of attempted murder. It. found Florance guilty and Woodham not guilty of discharging a revolver, both guilty of doing actual bodily harm, Florance not guilty and Woodham guilty of assault so ’as to cause actual bodily harm and both guilty of causing harm in such circumstances that if death had resulted they would have been guilty of manslaughter. In remanding the men for sentence his Honour said that some of the counts on which they had been convicted were alternatives, but the verdict was quite understandable.