VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY

Taranaki Daily News, 28 July 1932, Page 7

VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY

hermitage murder trial retirement of three hours. COMMENT ON EARLIER HEARING. -“IMPROPER REMARKS'* DEPLORED By Telegraph.—Press Association. Timaru, Last Night. A. verdict of not guilty was returned Iby the jury after a retirement of three hours at the end of the trial of William John Thomas Whalley on a charge of having murdered William Edward 'VX ogan on November 5, 1931, at the Hermitage, Mount Cook. The Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) made reference to the comment made by the coroner and committing magistrate. "When the hearing ■ was resumed this morning Constable Mackintosh said he arrived at th© Hermitage on November 6. The rifle had no blood stains. He examined the room in daylight and saw nothing attached to the rifle to discharge it, nor any protuberance in the wall which might have released the trigger. The rifle was empty, but a box of softnosed bullets was in the room. There was an empty shell on the floor. ■ln? a statement Whalley had said he had shown Wogan how to load the rifle, putting two bullets in the magazine and later removing them. Wogan was sitting on a chair with the rifle between his knees as Whalley was leaving the room. He heard a shot and turned round and saw blood streaming down, Wogan’s head. Dr. James Sutherland, Fairlie, gave evidence of the nature of the wound. ADDRESS TO JURY? The Crown Prosecutor in his address ■aid the jurymen had to begin .with •the assumption of Whalley’s-innocence and if they had heard any thing previously they should put ifc out of mind Bnd;consider the evidence /submitted. The only man in the room at the time of the tragedy was Whalley. Counsel for the defence had contended‘that Wbgan 'could have held-the rifle' and set the trigget on a nail, but there, was'no nail; or protuberance- in the room. . The prosecutor : contended it was unlikely and-impossible for- Wogan to have shot himself... ■ .Addressing the jury, counsel for Whalley said, the jurymen had to obliterate •verytiling they had heard or read: optside the?court. There were some peculiar features about the ‘case —-particularly : extraordinary, he called' it—and there .was the? conduct . of. the coroner who held the -inquiry and-of the magistrate who committed' Whalley for trial. Thote two men made from the bench Statements which, were decided!, pre-judicial-io Whalley. What they .said they eaid in' public and;-it had been published.* That was highly improper and he ?thought the Crown Law Office held the same view, for a change of venue was offered. The defence appreciated th® offer but decided to place Whalley’s fate in th© hands of a jury at Timaru.

; In his summing-lip-the Chief Justice •aid there was one matter to which lie was constrained to refer, and that was the . matter to which counsel had referred. in,-his address. When charging, the jury the previous day ho himself, knowing some thing of the kind. had' happened, ventured to deal witt’ it- in k guarded and. ’general way ■ without, making; particular: reference to the case. Counsel for Whalley had referred to the- matter and certainly not improperly, and the Chief Justice felt it incumbent upon him to say a word or two to clear up. the. mat ter. •' •' I - 1 ' ■ ' • .• ■ ■ RIGHT TO UNPREJUDICED JURY. Every persbn accused of a crime in a British community, the Chief Justice said, was entitled fair trial and had?the right to go before a trial jury unprejudiced and unembarrassed by prior comment. It was the duty of a coroner io ascertain the cause of death. The magistrate in such circumstances was sitting merely as a recorder of the evidence" before him, excepting that he might have to decide provisionally on the admissibility of evidence. If, as the Chief Justice gathered- from the statement by counsel, anything, had been done in.'this case contrary to what had been said, all 'he could say was that it was to be deplored. It had never happened in his experience in New Zealand before and he hoped it would never happen, again. After a retirement of over three hours the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. The pronouncement was received with applause.-'at the. .back of the court. The Chief Justice ordered the police to bring forward anyone seen applauding, but the police were not able to do eo. The Chief. Justice said he desired to make certain observations.. Counsel for the defence- had drawn his attention to the fact that when he was commenting during -the afternoon on comment -by the coronei-.and the committing magistrate, he did not have the accurate finding of -the coroner. He had the finding as it appeared ill the local paper, which omitted; two or three, words which very greatly qualified the comment that should be made eo far as • the coroner was concerned. The position of the coroner was different from that of the magistrate Ind so far as the coroner was concerned It would have been better if one paragraph of his finding had not appeared.