Mexborough & Swinton Times – Friday 1st April 1932
The Denaby Shooting Affair
Young Gamekeeper Acquitted
Believed Himself in Imminent Peril
Fired From the Hip
Story of a Dramatic Encounter
“A Desperate Character”
The case in which Claude Christian (25), a gamekeeper, of Hooton Roberts, employed by Earl Fitzwilliam, was charged at Doncaster with causing the death of Charles Wright (44) miner, 18 Annerley Street, Denaby, by shooting him on March 15th. near Denaby Wood, was dismissed last Thursday at the end of a hearing lasting almost two days.
A report of the first day’s proceedings appeared in our last issue. The first witness on Thursday was Dr. P. L. Sutherland, the West Riding County Council pathologist, who said he had conducted a post-mortem examination on the body of Wright on March 17th. A report prepared by him of the result of the examination was put in. Cross-examined by Mr. W. P. Donald. who appeared for Christian, witness said the wounds in Wright’s abdomen were compatible with the shot having been fired from the keeper’s hip, horizontally. The wounds were incompatible with the shot having been fired from the keeper’s shoulder. Had the gun been pointed downwards witness would have found the wad of the cartridge in the lower part of the abdomen, whereas it was in the upper part. The internal area of the injuries was greater than the external area. The shots entered the body and spread out, some upwards and some downwards, over an area of 15 inches. The main line of the pellets was from left to right horizontally.
Appeal For Aid
Walter Williamson. horseman, employed by Cyril Scott. farmer, of Old Denaby, said that at about 2 p.m. on March 15th he was on his way to a field near Denaby Wood, in charge of two horses, to do some ploughing, and on his way to the field he had to go up the drive through the wood. He saw Christian and four men. They were just inside the wood, about 20 yards from the road.
He heard the gamekeeper call to him. “Come and assist me.” There were four men and the keeper and they were walking together in a line. The men were about six, yards in front of the keeper. The keeper had a gun. It was at his right side, pointing to the earth. He complied with the keeper’s request and went towards him. He was on one of the horses when the keeper called to him, and dismounted, leaving the horses on the roadside and followed the keeper. He heard the men talking to the keeper. He could not bear what they said. As he drew nearer the men, he noticed that one of them had a gun. Witness demonstrated how the gun was being carried with the muzzle pointing upwards, half under the man’s coat and diagonally across his body. Witness could not say which man was carrying the gun, but when Evans, Pass. and Allen stood up in court he said he did not think it was one of them.
When witness walked up, the keeper was about six yards from the four men. He heard the man carrying the gun say to one of the men. “Get your gun out of your pocket.” He did not see whether the man did get his gun out. After that he followed the keeper and the men for 200 or 300 yards, at a distance of about 8 to 10 yards behind the keeper. He could hear the man who carried the gun talking and swearing. Some of the bad language was used to the keeper and some to witness. When they saw him following. One of the men said to him, “You _____off and get back to your ___work.” This was the man with the gun. After that remark witness went a few yards further, and then, when the men left the wood, witness went back to his horses. When he got back to his horses he went up to the field to commence ploughing. Before he had started ploughing, he heard a shot from the direction of where he had left the men. He went to investigate, and saw two of the men carrying another man across the field. The keeper had disappeared. Cross-examined. witness said he did not hear one of the men say “You ____ well stop here. or I will shoot you, too.” The men were adopting the same attitude to the keeper as they were to him. He did not at any time hear the words spoken to the keeper. The keeper was not offering to attack the men. and he never heard him threaten them at all. The man who had his gun out looked as though he was threatening the keeper.
The Magistrates’ Clerk (Mr. E. W. Pettifer): Did the keeper explain why he wanted assistance? —No, sir. Replying to further questions by Mr. Donald. witness said it was the man with the gun who was always nearest the keeper. He once turned round, and it was then that witness saw the gun he was carrying. That was the occasion when the man told him to “____off.”
In reply to the Magistrates’ Clerk, witness said that when he last saw Wright he was carrying his gun. The keeper had his gun in both hands, with the muzzle pointing to the ground.
At The Police Station
P.c. Waugh, stationed at Conisboro’ said at 2-10 on March 15th he was on duty at Conisboro’ police station when Christian came running into the station in a very excited condition. He was carrying a gun in his hand, and was sweating and properly worked up and excited. Immediately on getting into the station, he said, “I have shot him. There were four of them poaching in Denaby Thick. Two of them threatened me with guns, and I had to do it. Come on quick.”
Witness went with Christian to the scene of the affair and found no one there, but in consequence of certain information he went to the Fullerton Hospital with Christian and found Wright there. He was then semi-conscious and being attended to by Dr’s. McArthur and Ford. He was unable to make any statement. He subsequently charged Christian at Conisboro’ police station, after cautioning him, with shooting Wright with intent to commit bodily harm that day. Christian made no reply. Witness later received information of the death of Wright at the hospital and went to Hooton Roberts at 10-20 that night, cautioned Christian. and informed him that Wright had died. He took Christian into custody, and at Conisboro’ police station again cautioned him and charged him with causing the death of Wright by shooting him. Christian replied, “I cannot say anything.” Witness took possession of the clothing worn by Wright, and this was produced in court.
At The Hospital
While at the hospital, witness saw Evans. Pass. and Allen. With witness was Sergt. Huck who said to Pass. “I want your guns.” Pass replied; “There was only one gun.” Christian was then present: and intimated there were two guns, but Pass persisted there was only one, and they (the men) then walked away. As they were leaving the hospital a few minutes later they saw the men again, and Sgt. Huck said to Pass. “Now bring those two guns to the police station at four o’clock. We shall want all three of you there with a view to taking the station at the time stated, and Pass handed over two bolding guns and two cartridges. Christian was still there. Pass said he had got one of the guns from Wright’s hut and one from his (Pass’s) on the allotment. Pass told witness that the single-barrelled gun was Wright’s, and the double-barrelled gun was his own. Neither of the guns was licensed as far as witness knew.
Wright’s Record
At this stage Mr. Donald handed witness a list of 36 offences of which Wright had been convicted. Witness then said he knew Wright, who was the leader of the poachers. In reply to Mr. Donald. witness agreed that Wright was a habitual poacher.
Mr. Donald: Was he a habitual poacher with guns—l cannot say that.
Mr. Donald: Was he a man who readily and easily resorted to violence? —Yes.
Mr. Donald: Was he a man who was likely to inspire in the mind of the person he was threatening the fact that he meant what he was threatening—Yes. Witness said that when he visited the scene of the affair, he noticed a number of footmarks and the ground was trampled over an area of about four-square yards. There were distinct foot-marks of one man standing some distance from the others. He examined the poachers’ guns when they were handed over to him, but he could not say whether or not one had been recently fired. Both were dirty inside the barrels. This concluded the case for the prosecution.
The Keeper’s Story
Christian, on oath, said he had been a gamekeeper for three years. Part of that time was spent on an estate abroad, part on Lord Halifax’s estate, and the latter part in the service of Earl Fitzwilliam. He had a perfectly clean record and at no time had there been any charge against him. From information received before this affair, he had in his mind a picture of the character and appearance of Wright. and from the moment he met Wright on the day in question it was clear to him that this was the man who had been described to him. On that day he was on duty in Denaby Wood just after 1 p.m. He saw Wright, accompanied by the three men, Pass, Evans and Allen. He was about 30 yards from them when he first saw them. and noticed that two were armed with guns. One of the men armed was Wright, and he now knew the other as Pass. The men were organised as a shooting party. Two of them had sticks and were beating the bracken for the others. Wright spoke first as he was joining the others. saying, “You ____off. I know how far your beat goes.” Witness replied, “I’m doing my duty. I know what l am doing.” The men then both put their guns away. He could not see which had the single-barrelled gun nor who had the double-barrelled one. He got to within twelve yards of the men, who were walking away in the direction of the road which runs through the wood. As they moved off, Wright said “He is still ____well coming.” He also said “Let’s stop ‘him.” While they were crossing the road, he saw Williamson. and said to him, “Come and assist me here.” Williamson, who was with two horses, dismounted and came in witness’s direction, though he never actually got to them. Wright did say to him, “You____ off get back to your____ work.” Wright was the leader and spokesman of the party, bringing up the retreat and always being between witness and the others. When they had got a little way into the wood, the men split up, two going to one tree and two to another. Wright had his gun out then, and said to his companion, “let your gun out.” One of the men said, “Come on. let’s go.” It was true that he (Christian) had asked them for their guns. That was when they were going away from the wood. It was just after they had crossed the road that Wright pulled out his gun, and he never put it away again. When one of the men said “Let’s be going.” Wright said. “No, let me give the____ it.” Nothing more was said while they were in the wood. When Wright went to the tree witness saw him put two cartridges in his gun, and it was then that witness saw he had the double-barrelled gun.
As witness left the wood, he could not see Williamson following, because he was keeping hie eyes on the two men with guns. He was about twelve yards from them while they were crossing the field after leaving the wood. Nothing was then said. In another field the men got behind a tree, and witness made it his business to get up to the hedge, because he was sure they would fire. He could hear Wright say, “l.et us give him it and settle it.’ The men moved off again, and witness followed and said, “Leave the guns and clear off.” Wright replied, “What do you take me for?” Witness never replied. and the men continued walking. In the next field they stopped again, and Wright said “I’ve shot b¬¬¬____s like that in France, and I will do it again.” Evans said. “Come on; come on with you,” and urged Wright to go. The attitude of the men was one of appeasing Wright and getting him away. As soon as they got twenty yards into the field where the shooting took place, the men had a conversation together. “Wright had his gun out, and turned round with his gun to his shoulder, and shouted ‘l’ll have him.’ At the same time, I said ‘Stop!’ and fired from my side. Wright was bringing his gun up to his shoulder, and I had no doubt in my mind at the moment I fired that Wright was about to fire at me. I fired to stop him shooting me. I was holding my gun at the hip.”
“I Shot To Save Myself.”
Witness showed how he was holding his gun and also how Wright was holding his. He said that the other man with a gun was fumbling about with it, though he did not see him doing anything else. “As I fired,” ‘he went on. “I expected he might pull the trigger, so I jumped to one side and ran. I was within eight yards of them when I fired. I realised that as I had only one shot available that could only be used as a last resort. I was sure that Wright was going to fire. There was no doubt about it. I was, just out to protect myself and I had no intention of killing him. I fired low down.” Mr. Donald: If that happened tomorrow would you feel that was the only thing you could do in the circumstances in which you found yourself placed? — l am sure of it.
Mr. Donald: While you are extremely sorry for the result of your firing you are satisfied that everything you did you had to do in your own defence? —Yes. I am. Cross-examined by Supt. Minty. witness said that after leaving the wood they went about half a mile before the shooting occurred. Supt. Minty: Why did you call the horseman to your assistance? —Because I had been told that this man, whom I recognised as Wright, would be a desperate character. Witness said he did not ask the men for their addresses while they were in the wood.
Supt. Minty: Was it not the time to ask the men for their names and addresses while horseman was there? —l was watching myself. I could see that Wright was dangerous. Witness said he followed the men to get to know who they were. he had dealt with armed poachers before, and once before had a gun pointed at him by a poacher. Supt. Minty: Did you consider it necessary to defend yourself by firing on that occasion? —No. Supt. Minty: Can you explain why on tide occasion you fired? —l was told this man’s character by one of the farmers, who said he was very dangerous and not to be trusted. Supt. Minty: I take it you deliberately fired at this man? -I shot to save myself. Supt. Minty: Because you were frightened—l thought he was going to shoot me. Mr. Donald: Having regard to his threats and final conduct, were you convinced when you fired that your life was in danger? -I was. Chairman (Mr. H. Woodhouse): Why did you not attempt to approach these men? —I thought it was too dangerous. The Chairman: Were you afraid of Wright only—l was very much afraid of Wright.
Life’s Little Ironies
Addressing the Bench, Mr. Donald said it was one of life’s little ironies that the same act might result in commendation or condemnation according as who witnessed it. That was true in civil life as it was in military life. It was often said that if some of the things seen by subordinate officers were seen by the staff the man who got the Victoria Cross would probably get severe punishment for breaking regulations. That was true in this case, whatever view they took of the evidence, he was quite sure that in their own minds they were satisfied that this young fellow who was before them on the serious charge of Manslaughter deserved to be commended„ for the gallant way in which he discharged his duty and for the restraint he exercised during its discharge. It was unfortunate that climax was the taking of human life, and the taking of human life was such a serious matter, at any rate in civil life; that their worships might be called upon to decide whether the circumstances warranted a charge of murder, manslaughter. or being described as homicide only. Whether justifiable or excusable.
The defence which he put before them behalf of the prisoner was the defence excusable homicide; killing in circumstances which were neither murder nor manslaughter but were such as the law would excuse. In order that they might decide that killing was excusable they must be of opinion either that It was an accident or that it was done in self-defence. He did not propose to say that what this man did was done by accident. If his story was true the killing was excusable because done in self-defence, under circumstances that he genuinely thought, and had good reason for thinking. put his own life at stake, and the law had said that if a man took the life of another, believing, and having just cause to believe, that his own life was at stake, then they might excuse him. He realised that in putting-that defence forward at that stage of the proceedings in that court, he was asking the magistrates to exercise great courage, and if they did not accept Christian’s story as every word true, then they would not be justified in dismissing the case at that stage. It would be their duty to say there was a prima facie case for trial. On the other hand, if they accepted this man’s story it was their duty to have the courage of their convictions and say they did not believe the story told by the poachers. and did not believe any jury would accept it.
The Issue.
It followed that their worships must address their mind to certain considerations. First. did the man genuinely believe that his life was in danger? Second, had he a reasonable cause. acting as a reasonable being with a reasonable amount of physical courage. and a reasonable outlook on what had taken place. to believe, and did he believe, that his life was in danger? He could point out at least a score of instances in which the poachers had contradicted themselves, and another score in which they had contradicted one another, but to do so would rather draw their worships’ attention from the main issues. Those must certainly be: Had Wright a gun in his hand at the carry throughout, and was his gun pointed at the accused at the time when the accused fired? Did they believe the story of the threats against the accused and the farmer’s man and did they believe the accused’s story that when he fired, he fired from the hip, not properly prepared, without any pre-conceived notion except what came to him instantaneously of the danger that surrounded him? If they believed that Wright pointed his gun at the accused and that first by the gun and secondly by the. culminating power of those threats there was driven into Christian’s mind at that moment the thought that his life was in danger and he must act quickly to save it. they had gone a long way toward. arriving at the conclusion he asked 6.m to arrive at. There was the overwhelming corroborative evidence from the doctor. who attended Wright in hospital and the pathologist who had given evidence that morning that Christian was called upon to fire from the hip. There was corroboration of Christian’s story about Wright’s gun being out, and there was absolute contradiction of the poacher’s story. Was not there indirect corroboration of Wright’s having his gun in his hands the action of the men after the affair? When the police asked them for their guns, they persisted in saying they had only one gun. It was just as easy to say they had no guns at all. – but he suggested that at the back of their minds there was the thought that Wright had been carrying his gun openly all the time. The poachers had shown throughout not only a definite intention of avoiding the truth but a definite intention of asserting what was false.
Did His Duty.
Mr. Donald asked their worships to say that as soon as the accused was convinced that the poacher was going to fire, he then honestly believed his life was in danger. The law was perfectly clear. It a man defended himself in a manner which clearly indicated that every action he had taken he had taken in self-defence, then it was the duty of those who were trying him to accept his plea and bring in a verdict of excusable homicide. That was the verdict he asked at their hands. He asked it confidently, knowing that he was asking a lot. “Here is a young man just beginning life,” he went on. “Here is a young fellow who showed very great bravery under difficult conditions. Is it reasonable to send that man for trial by jury if you are satisfied, and I suggest you must be satisfied, that the poachers are lying throughout, not merely avoiding the truth, but are lying constructively? The three of them have been caught, and they think this a chance of getting even with the man who showed his courage and did his duty in putting down the offence.”
Acquittal
The Bench announced their decision atter an absence of twenty minutes, the Chairman (Mr. H. Woodhouse) saying: “We realise that this is a very serious offence and it puts upon myself and my colleague a very grave responsibility. I am sure our sympathy goes out to those who have been bereaved in this sad affair, but at the same time we are here to do our duty, and we have given the matter very careful consideration. We have come to our conclusion, and I hope a right one, independently of the very able defence put forward by Mr. Donald. should like to say that before he began his address for the defence, we had come to the conclusion we have come to now: that this is not a case to go before a jury. We believe the defence, and therefore the case is dismissed.”
At the conclusion or the case Christian was surrounded by friends who had been present throughout the hearing and who congratulated him warmly on the verdict.