REVOLVER SHOT

Waikato Times, Volume 126, Issue 21035, 10 February 1940, Page 9

REVOLVER SHOT

GAOL FOR SEAMAN LEGAL SUBMISSION FAILS ADDITION OF INDICTMENT (By Telegraph.—Press Association) WELLINGTON, Friday Mr Justice Ostler in the Supreme Court overruled a legal point raised by counsel for Charles Theodor Nelson, seaman, aged 51, who was found not guilty by a jury of attempted murder and discharging a revolver with intent to do grievous bodily harm to Stanley Meredith Hunt, slaughterman, but guilty of causing actual bodily harm in circumstances that had death occurred would have made him guilty of manslaughter. His Honour sentenced Nelson to three months’ imprisonment with hard labour.

Nelson was charged on the first two counts, but the third count was added to the indictment. Mr R. Hardie Boys asked His Honour today to state a case for the Court of Appeal under section 442 of the Crimes Act, as to whether it was competent to amend the indictment after the jury had acquitted accused on the only two charges on which he was placed on trial. . The jury gave its verdict on the two charges before 11 a.m., and it was submitted that at that stage the trial had concluded. The jury was then asked to give a verdict on another charge. Question of Injury Accused had previously been charged on the third count and had been asked to plead. He might have wanted to call medical evidence to show that the powder charge received in the face by Hunt was not actual bodily harm, but merely discomfort. Mr W. H. Cunningham, Crown Prosecutor, submitted that accused had not been prejudiced because the third charge came from his own versions of the incident. Opinion of Judge His Honour said an indictment could be amended in conformity with proof as long as it did not prejudice an accused. In his opinion the amendment had actually been made during the trial. Counsel had attended in his room and he had informed them of what he intended to do, showing them the particular question he proposed to put to the jury. There was no objection at the time, and counsel knew what his client had to meet. When the jury was considering the first two counts it was also considering the other question that was being put to it.

His Honour said he would not state a case for the Court of - Appeal. Prisoner, if he so desired, would have to go straight to the Court of Appeal.