Bank Clerk Not Guilty

Manawatu Times, Volume 62, Issue 41, 18 February 1937, Page 7

Bank Clerk Not Guilty

Invercargill Shooting Tragedy GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS MINORS SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO FIREARMS Ver Press Association. INVERCARGILL, Last Night. The hearing was resumed in the Supreme Court to-day of tho charge of manslaughter against Oswald Cowie, bank clerk. Evidence was given by Tangi Kitson, farm labourer, and William Thomas McQuarrie, fisherman, both of whom accompanied tho deceased Fletcher and his companion Robertson to the bank premises. Their testimony was on similar lines to that given in the Lower Court, though in cross-examination by counsel for the accused it was shown that all the four men had indulged in liquor prior to going to the bank, where they had spent a time in further drinking and listening to music. Both stated that, though Wyatt was under tho influence of liquor, Cowie was perfectly sober.

They detailed the circumstances leading up to the production of the relolver by Wyatt and its subsequent disappearance and to the preparations for leaving the premises when Wyatt pointed out that he was expecting a visit from the manager and therefore they had better leave.

Both witnesses said they did not hear any scuffle or argument prior to the lirst revolver shot. At the time both were at tho doorway. They ran away a few yards and, finding Fletcher missing, came back und found him unconscious. McQuarrie stated that he had tho bank revolver and the cartridges separately m his pockets, and ho took them out and threw them into a shrub in the gardens. Edward Allan Wyatt, bank clerk, said that when the door bell rang he was merry but not drunk. He went down and opened the door, McQuarrie stating that he knew Les Nicoll, who used to bo in the bank, and all walked into the basement and then upstairs. Witness said when he produced a revolver McQuarrie came u*d took it. He could not say where he went after that. During the evening he had asked them several times to leave, but did not remember anything that happened on the stairs or at the foot. There was no telephone in the residential quarters, and in case of emergency they would have to go downstairs and into the office to use it.

Constable Bummers said when the accused rushed into the watchhouse he was much excited but was perfectly sober and said he had shot a man, who, with three others, were on the bank premises and had another revolver. Witness detailed the injuries he had noticed on Wyatt's face und hand. It looked as if a blow caused his teeth to cut his lips. In his address to tho jury, the Crown Prosecutor asked, did accused fire the shot which caused Fletcher’s death? If the jury was not satisfied he did, then that was the end of the case. If it was satisfied he did, then it would consider whether anything justified or excused his firing the shot. If his conduct was excusable then accused should be ae quilted but if there was no excuse then, putting sentiment aside, it was the jury’s duty to find a verdict of guilty. The position was that accused said he did fire the shot that killed Fletcher and had sworn on oath that he fired the shot. In these circumstances the jury must find their answer to that question in the affirmative. On the matters of justification or excuse, there was no question of accident. Accused fired the shot and said ho fired it at Fletcher. In the second place there was no question of self-defence. Fletcher was not threatening accused but was trying to got out of the door. “It can only be characterised as an act of insensate folly,” said tbe Crown Prosecutor, who drew attention to a difference between the statement made to the police by accused and his evidence in the lower Court.

For the defence, Mr. Hanlon, who called no evidence, said he would ask the jury whether it had been proved to its entire satisfaction that accused fired the fatal shot. Although tho Crown Prosecutor had challenged the veracity of accused’s statements, counsel put it to jury that accused’s statement to tho police was not necessarily conclusive. The position the jury was in was that it had to find whether the ovidence proved that accused fired the fatal shot and hot as to what ho had said in the statement or in his evidence in the Lower Court. Someone else might have fired tho fatal shot, suggested counsel. Wyatt, in tho ambulance, had said repeatedly that he did not want accused to lose his job and admitted that “he did it.” What did that mean? Could Wyatt, if he were in the dock, be convicted on his admission? Then should accused, because of his admission, be convicted. None of the witnesses had sworn that accused fired the shot or saw him fire it. Was accused and accused only guilty of the offence?

“At the bank, we are told, there was just a friendly argument yet one of the men took off his coat and punched Wyatt ou the jaw,” said Mr. Hanlon. ‘ ‘The evidence showed that Wyatt was badly knocked about. The four men who visited the bank were in a mood to be cantankerous and would not leave when asked to go by Wyatt.” Accused knew that one of tho men had got hold of a revolver and cartridges and was really frightened as to what would happen. That was probably the reason why he went and got Wyatt’s revolver aud put it in his pocket for protection. Mr Hanlon commented on the leaving of mere youths in charge of a bank, armed with revolvers. What were revolvers given to them for? he asked. Were they to protect the bank property or themselves? There must be something wrong, he said, w’hen two youths were given revolvers with no instructions in their use. Such a practice ought to be stopped. What had it