GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER

Stratford Evening Post, Volume II, Issue 239, 10 May 1933, Page 3

GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER

Papaioetoe Tragedy CLARK’S TRIAL ENDS Remanded for Sentence Press Association —Copyright Auckland, May 9. Thomas Francis Clark was to-day found guilty of manslaughter of Bertha May Bennett at Papatoetoo on January 17. The woman was shot in her bed and the charge against Clark was one of murder.

Clark's mother gave evidence that she j regarded her son and Mrs. Bennett as j lovers. Mrs. Bennett had told her that j she and Clark were going to be man cd. j Clark entered the witness box and j said that when he first knew Mrs. Benj nett ten years ago he thought Alfred i George Hamilton was courting her. She j often invited him to visit her place, but ihe kept away. He first called at the j house in September, 1931, The friendj ship grew until he heard a rumour that she was living with Hamilton. He taxed j her and she said that Hamilton was no--1 thing to her, only a boarder. | They continued on affectionate terms | and he spent practically all of his spare time with her. He asked her two or throe 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 hi 1 1 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 i thought the world of her and was ready ;to marry her at any time. They went j to Auckland and he obtained the marI riage papers. On the night of her death i she again told him that Hamilton meant | nothing to her. He said he was going to i find out, and she laughed, j He went homo and was reading in bed ' when it suddenly occurred to him to i o Tj and find out if there was any truth j in what he had heard, i Clark described how he found Mrs. ! Bennett and Hamilton in bed and rea- | Used that she was unfaithful to the j trust and faith he put in her. He went j ! to another room and there saw a gun.! I He loaded it and intended shooting him- | self. He intended to return to the bed- ! j room, wake the woman up and tell hei | I that he was going to shoot himself. He j woke her up. She ordered him out, and ! I he was so upset and shaking that he did i j not remember properly what happened, j I He heard the gun go off and when ho i ! came to his senses it was pointing to- I ; wards her. | He went to the other room, put the j other cartridge into the gun and pointed ! it at his side. He pulled the trigger, but j Hie shot struck his watch and glanced | off. He did not then know that the j

woman had been shot. Clark was cross-examined at length by Mr. Hubble for the Crown. Mr. Northcroft, addressing the jury, submitted that Clark was provoked into a sudden passion and that there was no intention to murder the woman. He argued that in the circumstances it was neither murder nor manslaughter. Counsel Address Jury Addressing the jury Mr. Northcroft, for Clark, said it was laid down by law j that culpable homicide could be reduced j to manslaughter if the person who i caused death did so in a fit of sudden i passion caused by provocation. Accordingly in the present case there was no , murder. Clark saw his intended wife j sleeping in the arms of his best friend. | That would be a sufficient act or insult j to cause him to lose self-control. , “If you take a proper view of the; facts,” said Mr. Northcroft, “I most | earnestly suggest there are three courses j open to you—to find accused guilty of murder as the Crown asks you to do, to j

find him guilty of manslaughter on the grounds' that there was provocation, or to find 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, for the Crown, said the facts of the case were simple. Clark’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 a lucid account which fitted the facts brought out in evidence. As to provocation, it was not present in that sudden degree to warrant a reduction from culpable homicide to manslaughter. His Honour said there could be no defence of insanity in the statement. Clark expressed the 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 insult. If the jury found there was a contract to marry it would be justified in saying there had been a wrongful act against Clark. It had to be proved that the wrongful act suffered by Clark was sufficient to rob any ordinary man of selfcontrol before murder could be reduced to manslaughter. The jury returned after an hour and twenty minutes with a verdict of manslaughter. Clark was remanded for sentence.