FOUND GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 85, Issue 32, 7 February 1941, Page 6

FOUND GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHT

VERDICT IN MANUNUI CASE MURDER CHARGE REJECTED JURY RECOMMENDS MERCY. i L’er Press Association. I AUCKLAND, Feb, 6. After a retirement of four hours a jury at Hamilton found Charles Harold Longley, invalidity pensioner, not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter through his negligent handling of a firearm, with a strong recommendation to mercy on accounl 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. Longley was charged with the murder of Jeremiah O’Sullivan at Manunui on September 22, 1940. Mr. Justice Smith presided. Mr. H. T. Gillies and Mr. J. R. FitzGerald appeared for the Crown. Longley was represented by Mr. W. J. King and Mr. D. H. Hall. Following the unexpected discharge of the jury on Tuesday because of the omission of a juror to inform the Court that he was in a special position, a new jury had to be sworn in on Wednesday morning. Son and Daughter’s Evidence Charles Ronald Longley, aged 16 years, in evidence, said he was in the kitchen with his father shortly before the tragedy. He had come into tell his lather that O’Sullivan was approaching. He remembered a conversation between O’Sullivan and his mother at the door up to the 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 witness heard was the report of a rifle. Similar evidence was given by Eunice Sylvia Longley, sister of the previous witness. She had seen her father pick up a 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 condition that they carried out certain repairs. Witness claimed that her late husband was a kindly man -and very fond of his children. This closed the case for the Crown. No evidence was called for the defence. , Question of Intent. The important question, said, the Crown Prosecutor, Mr. 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 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. Grounds of the Defence. Opening his address to the jury, Mr. King, counsel for the defence, explained the grounds on which the defence was based. 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. Hence the Crown could not say that Longley knew the rifle was loaded. When he picked it up 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 a 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 an impulsive ■ man. The defence, therefore, chai-' lenged even the charge of manslaughter. ,