WOMAN CHARGED WITH MURDER

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 239, 6 July 1944, Page 6

WOMAN CHARGED WITH MURDER

Lower Court Hearing MAN’S DEATH FROM BULLET WOUND Mary Stuart Walker, married, aged 3”, was charged before Mr. Stout, S.M., in the Magistrates’ Court, Wellington, yesterday, with the murder of a returned soldier, Richard Townsend Chorley, aged 23, on the night of May 4. Mr. W. 11. Cunningham prosecuted and Mr. W. J. Stacey appeared for accused. Alfred John Chorley. staff sergeant, Trentham, said that his son, Richard ’Townsend Chorley, returned from overseas with the first furlough draft and then worked at a carrier's. His son left, homo on May 4 at: about 6.30 p.m. Glue next time he saw him was at the Wellington Public Hospital nt 11 p.m. Doreen Constance Chorley said sh- - * married Richard Townsend Chorley on. May 4. after knowing him for eight months. She was living in Daniell Street at the home of accused, .Mrs. Walker, wiio was her aunt, when she met him. He lived at. Daniell Street at one time while he was working for accused’s husband, but he' left after last Christmas. She did not know why he left but but he never came back to live there. He diil stay once for a -few nights. Her aunt' was there then. He came to see witness sometimes at the house but not frequently—they used to meet in town. About two months before May 4, said witness, Chorley rang her up, hut her aunt took the call because she was an- ■ noyed at his saying she would not allow I her niece to go out with him. Her aunt told Chorley to go home to his mother and not to cause any rows. i Chorley arrived at the house ton minutes after the incident and took her out. He did not go back there till the wedding.

On May 4 witness married Chorley at the Registrar’s Olliee. Iler aunt knew about, it —witness told her beforehand. Ghorley said he wanted a quiet wedding with no fuss. After the ceremony she did not see her husband till 6.30 that evening. She had had a letter from her mother in Hokitika asking her to come home and she had made arrangements to go that night. Her husband knew that. Celebration Proposed. After arranging to meet her husband at the ferry wharf witness went back to Daniell Street, and told her aunt she was married. Her aunt suggested they celebrate, so, with her aunt’s daughter-in-law, they went to a hotel, staying there till 6 o'clock. Her aunt drank whisky and some other kind of drink. Another woman, Mrs. Bush, joined them at the hotel. They returned home at 6..15, They then went down to the wharf in a taxi to sec witness off. After a while she saw her husband. He was sober. From the ship she called out to the three women who were on the wharf to take care of her husband. Witness said she knew her aunt was a good rifle shot; onee she had been out with her shooting. At. the residence in Daniell Street there were four guns. The .22 rifle produced in Court shk recognized as the one sold by Sergeant Chorley to her uncle, husband of accused. To ?.Ir. Stacey witness said that she and accused got on well together. David Lawrence Atkinson, taxi-driver, said that on the evening of May 4 he drove three women ami a soldier to 74 Daniell Street from the Lyttelton ferry wharf. One of them was accused, x\ carton of beer was bought, the soldier paying for it. The women seemed “quite jovial.’’ ’l’he soldier was sober. Irene Mabel Bush, married, said she I was a friend of accused. On the afternoon of May 4 she met Mrs. "Walker and .Mrs. Chorley at a hotel. When she arrived accused was “very merry.” Also there were Mrs. Walker, junior, an airman ami another woman. A good many rounds of drinks were consumed. Arrived back at Daniell Street, they went into the living-room. Chorley produced beer, some of which was drunk. At that time, said whites. she was standing in front; of the fireplace. Chorley was standing by (he fable, accused was talking Io him. Mrs. Walker, junior, was sitting in a chair by the fireplace. She heard Chorley and accused talking about going away shoaling on the King's Birthday holiday. She said “I must be going” and turned round and sat on the arm of the couch, near the kitchen door. She then saw Chorley and accused holding a gun. They seemed to be inspecting it. She did not know where the gun had come from. She did not see anyone leave the room. Her intention was to leave and come hack later. As witness left Chorley walked to the front door with her. He walked slightly behind her as it was a narrow passage. Accused was not. in the room when she left. She did not see the rifle. Chorley did not complain of anything while she was there. .Mr. Cunningham: Was he holding his hands over his stomach'.'—He might have been in that position, but he never said anything. Continuing, witness said she did not know where accused was at. the time: she did not see her Have the room. Request. Io Magistrate. Mr. Cunningham asked the magistrate if lie could cross-examine witness on her statement. He submitted that she had refused to disclose the whole of the facts. The magistrate: I am afraid there is no foundation for that —you will have to take her statement. Continuing, witness said the only conversation she heard between Chorley and accused was about the shooting trip and the wedding. Accused said she was surprised about, it and thought it. was a pity that Chorley had not gone with his wife. As far ns witness knew no shooting took place while she was in the room. Mr. Cunningham: AVhile you were in the sitting-room was the rifle discharged? Witness: No—l. did not hear it. AVitness said she left and returned later to find police there. Chorley had gone to . the hospital. Alfred Bruno Sternberg. meiHeal practitioner, said be was called Io 74 Daniell Street at S o'clock on May 1 by Mrs. Walker. He found a soldier lying on a bod with a bullet wound in the abdomen. 'l’he soldier was in a critical condition, so an .■imbnlaiiee was sent for. Accused helped him examine the soldier. She said it had been nil accident and pointed to a rifle in the bedroom and said she thought it had caused it. lie understood from those there at the time that no one had seen the shooting. Witness did not notice any sign of advanced intoxication about accused.

‘Si’nior-Scrgoiint Gregory Gi’ruld Kelly, firms expert, said the bull.'t which caused the fatality belonged to a .22 rille he examined. It would be impossible for a person of normal hearing not to hear its discharge. If there was a bud cartridge a reduced explosive force might resuit and noise would not be so loud. The hearing was adjourned till today.