NOT GUILTY

Stratford Evening Post, Volume II, Issue 242, 13 May 1933, Page 6

NOT GUILTY

- —■ i MAORI YOUTH ACQUITTED i KAITAIA MURDER CHARGE | Fairness of Police J Press Association— Copyright. Auckland. May 12. ! The five-day trial of the Maori youth I Riwi Manuel on a charge of murdering I his employer. Kati Robson. at Pukepoto near Kaitaia, on January 3, ended tonight with a verdict of not guilty. Addressing the jury'earlier Mr. Trim- ! mer said Robson died of a gunshot | wound; that could scarcely be denied. | but that Manuel firfed the shot was ! emphatically contested, i Mr. Meredith for the Crown said the | boy admitted he intended to injure. The j point was whether he knew what he ditl 'was likely to cause death and whether he was reckless whether it did or not. lit was open to (ho jury to consider he | did not know death was likely to result. | In that case the charge of murder would j be reduced to manslaughter. I Mr. Justice Herdman said there was j culpable homicide amounting to murder !if the offender meant to cause injury I likely to result in death and if he was reckless whether death followed or not. jlf a person used a gun to cause injury 'without such recklessness and death resulted he would be guilty of man- ■ slaughter.

j The conduct of the police throughout I the proceedings had been scrupulously fair. They were particularly careful to see the Lad made a statement free from influence. There could be no .suggestion that any statement the lad made was haunted by fear. The foundation of the case was a statement, made by the boy |in which he said he stood in the doorway of Hati Robson'.s room an,, shot him. There were various circumstances that might lead them to consider the boy's statement was in deed and fact true. There was no evidence to implicate Thomas. The suggestion that he had anything to do with the case was founded upon the flimsiest possible evidence, indeed on no evidence at all. "If you conclude that without intending to kill, Manuel fired at Robson and wounded him, it is your duty to bring in a verdict of manslaughter," said His Honour. If the jury came to the conclusion that the boy's statements were not to be relied on. His Honour said, then of course the case for the Crown would fall to the ground, but 'i was difficult to see how they could be rejected in the circumstances. The jury was absent for four hours 20 minutes before it returned a verdict of not guilty.