PUKEKAWA TRAGEDY

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 48, 20 November 1920, Page 10

PUKEKAWA TRAGEDY

THE CHARGE AGAINST THORN JURY FAILS TO AGREE A NEW TRIAL ORDERED By Teloeranh—Press Association. Auckland, November 19. Tho trial of Samuel John Thorn, charged with tho murder of Sidney Soymom' Eyre, at Pukekawa, on August 24, was continued to-day. Mr. Martin announced that ho would call no further evidence "for the Crown. Mr. Singer then addressed the jury. For tho defence, ho pointed out. that if tho verdict was adverse the Judge must puss o. sentenco of death. It was tho duty of the Crown, to prove to the last inch the necessity to take a human life. They would remember that at the inquest the accused, who was a compellable witness and had refused on his counsel's advico to answer ouestions, had on oath given an emphatic denial that ho committed the murder. With reference to tlio conversation between Taylor, tho hotolkeeper, and T(iorn, whei} the witness Shugar wna & mere listener, tho jury would bo satisfied, not onlj; that accused's remark was not an admission, but was a natural answer to what had previously transpired. Counsel thought ho could show that there were the gravest doubts in -tiho case, and that there was not only a possibility, but an estromo probability, that not the accused, but someone else, committed the murder. The report giveoi to DetectiveSergeant Cummings that Thorn had been seen outside on the night of the murder was . untrue. If anyone hail wen liini evidence would have been given.. . Circumstantial evidence must bo strong in every liiik. The expert, Hazard—lie might, call him tho "hazardous expert"—aiid two doctors, declared that thei shot had been fired by a lefthitfid Hhot. It was! Suggested tliolt Eyre was shot in tho left eye. A lefthanded shot firing frcili the window would, have struck Eyre's right eye. It was extmordinary that witnesses declared "the shot was necessarily, fired from outside the window wheji the samo anglo conld have been obtained by moving the bed. For some weeks Eyre was sleeping heavily. Was ho given something, or had lie taken something to make him sleep? Was be such a heavy sleeper that he would not be disturbed by the moving of the bed? Outsido the liouso there we're no fdotmarks and no finger-prints? The Crown's theory

was on a jilanned murder. Was it unreasonable t<> suppose that those who planned it, planned it so that everyone should believo Eyre was shot outside tho window? Tho Horse-shoe Marks. Mr. Singer commented on the faot that tho contents of deceased's stomach nad not been analysed. That was nearly as extraordinary as the fact that there wiw no evidence of footmarks bv tiie window.., In regard to the 'horseshoe prints in the mud. tnose hod only been traced for four miles and a half. If these marks were the wonderfully distinct things , they were said to be, whywere they not traced to Granville's place? Surely that, cast considerable doubt upon the suggestion that they wero made by "Mickey's" shoes. A detective had examined some 1300 horses, of which. +18 were shod. It might be that the 419 th horse had had his shoes taken off before tho police arrived. If it could have been shown conclusively that the marks were made on the night of Tuesday, August 24,- it might have slightly strengthened the Crown's case. It had brven admitted hv tine Crown that even if it was proved that they were "Mickey's" shoe marks at the prut, that did not prove that Thorn ■was there that night. Tho question of motive was one of tho most important in tT!o case. It was important in a'case of circumstantial evidence. It was a great peg upon which the .Crown hod lint. Even strong evidence of motive was not sufficient. Mrs. Eyre-had said that Hie accused had her in his power. Did the jury think anyone could get that "calm, cold, callous, calculating woman" hi his power, or would she be tho one to put tentacles round some man? Nero lay the destruction of tha Crown's theory of motive. Wblen.' Thorn pneked up his things, more than once, that woman who linted him, despised blm, feared him, instead of sayinc:, "Hero i,s a month's wages, get out, for Heaven's sake," asked him, "What is the matter? -What are you going for?" Then, in regard to the advertisement, she showed it to her husband, but never asked what it meant, and despite a woman's natural curiosity, she never asked about cprtain letters Eyre received from abroad, and which he burn,-' ed immediately he read them. Was tho advertisement put' in tho paper by someono connected withi tho murder? Must not Mrs. Eyre's attitude have 'been that of a woman who did not care, or had somo animosity towards her husband? Could a woman Admitting misconduct, ns she has done, have any regard for him?

Mr. Singer added that' it had been susgested that oouncel had cast a slur on tho dead man. A Slur on the DeadT His Honour: If you were not .matins a charge of improper conduct against Iho husband, I do not know what you meant. Mr. Singer: I made no such charge. 1 am not suggesting it is a crime or n weak tiring to use bad langnagb T am suggesting that tins woman was of such a nature that no ordinary ninn .would have failed to use bad language towards her. I invite von. gentlemen, from her evidence to say that if he did hot use bad language )o her, then he was an absolute angel. Did she deserve it? Am I easting a slur on tlie dead by saying' that this man called her bad names? Tliero are 110 names I have in my vocabulary whioli I think this woman does not deserve. /With regard to the incidents of the night of the murder, counsel said that Mrs. Byre' could not tell, within two hours wlien the doz barked. If that was so, then the barking could have been before she went to bed. If tho evidennn raised the question whether it was possible that Sirs. Eyrp fired the shot, then (ho accused was entitled to the benefit. There was no flurry, fear, or horror 011 her part when counsel repeatedly referred to her husband's brains and blood, and showed her a horrible photograph. Had. they ever seen calmer demeanour? Wfe there any meaning in that? She had admitted that on the niglit of the murder shn was satisfied |t was Thorn's she heard, and also his gun, 'and she admitted 'she told her children not to mention her familiarity with Thorn, because" they "might be the means of hanging an ijyiceent nan." Significant words. Why should she come here and -blast her reputation? Counsel presumed she would rather have licr imputation blasted than be tried for intydnr. That was likely her choice. \Vliy did she not tell the police thai <ihe heard Thorn's steps? The most conclusive fact in the case, said counsel, was that when accused asked Airs. Eyre on September i why she suspected him, she replied, because under the circumstances he was the only one she could think of. Did the jury not think slie would have answered, "Why, Sam, I heard you." Possibly tliero Was someone other than Mrs. Byre, or accused, who was in tho ense. . I

Mr. Singer concluded his address nt 12.25 p.m. Mr. Martin did- not address tho Jury. His Honour's Summing" Up, The Chief Justice, in summing np, referred to Mr. Singer's remarks about itrj. Eyro to tlio Jury, xfe said ;ney utarted with the' fact the woman and the man (lid* wrong. Tlioro was the question of motive. What was the position of accused? If tho eyidenec-jrjs true, al'tcr the husband's return, accused had mado what were practically threats against him. Ifo desired tho \v6mau. Ho was dominated by love or lust for her—they could uso whichever word they wished, it dirt not matter. It might be that this desiro to get tho woman led him to commit this great crime. If tho jury camo to tho conclusion .in the event of the other evidence being correct, that Thorn was in the neighbourhood of Eyro's houso on tho night of tho murder, if ho was dominated by this lust—love some people called it—then lie might have w.tnlcd lo get rid of Byre. It was suggested that tho crime might havo been committed by Mrs. Eyre, but that was not suggested by prisoner himself. Ho had denied tho

suggestion tlint it was done by her or her family. If it was done by her or tho family; if it was "done by her, where was tliQ gun? One gun in tho place had not ben fired for about a month. "Can there bo any shadow of suggestion." asked Hi 6 Honour, "that you, as uonest ■ men, can rely upon to say that this shot was fired by somo person in the house?" The accused had not suggestcd4h.it. On tho contrary, he suggested that it might have bcon fired from outside, If the suggestion did not come from Thorn, it was" not necossury to go further into it, but there was a gun found in accused's possession that had been fired about tho; enmo time as tho gun that killed Eyre. ' His Honour added that if tluj jury enmo '>' to the couoluMon that deceased was slrttt from outside, it did not matter wlmt statements Mrs. Byre made. Sho was not tho person who'committed tho murder. lie would not comment on tho suggested charge against her. Ho thought that tho ohargo Islwuld not bo .considered by tho jury unless tho oridcnco pointed inevitably to her. Could they snv that any evidence pointed to her at all? _ ; After a long retirement, the jury-inti-mated that tlioro was no ohanco of an agreement, and a now trial was ordered.