SUSPICIOUS DEATH AT PORT CHARMERS.

Evening Star, Issue 3706, 8 January 1875, Page 2

SUSPICIOUS DEATH AT PORT CHARMERS.

An inquest was held at Port Chalmers yesterday afternoon before Dr Drysdale, district coroner, touching the death of George Aldridge. The following evidence was given : Samuel Wells, fisherman : Knew the deceased, and on Tuesday last went to where he lived at the Spit, and had tea with him, his wife, and Thomas Bisset. The latter was going to town to procure stores, and deceased asked witness to go with him to look at his boat. They had to cross a fence, and on reaching it deceased fell. Witness asked him what was matter, and he replied that he “ wanted to got under the fence.” Witness then lifted him up and sat him down, and ran back to the house to fetch his wife. She and Bisset came to the deceased, and Bisset called for water, saying that Geordie (deceased) was in a fit. Deceased put the water to his lips but did not drink any, and was then seized with an attack of vomiting. Bisset remarked that it was only a fit, and that he would go to the Port for some medicine. Further assistance was obtained, and deceased carried to his house. On the way witness thought he was dead. Deceased was quite well the day he died, and perfectly sober. Witness had been acquainted with him far six or seven years. Generally speaking he was not a sober man. There had been no quarrelling qn the day he died. He did not complain of being unwell that day. The cut on his temple appeared to be an old wound. Witness was not aware that he had been quarrelling the Jay previous, neither did he know Bisset or he to nave an angry word.

Ann Ruth, a widow, who had been cohabiting with deceased for the last three years: Remembered a quarrel on December 29 occurring between deceased and Thomas Bisset in their house. There were only the two men and herself present, and it arose out of settling for board. Aldridge asked Bisset to pay, when the latter produced a bag containing a book, which the former threw into the fire. Aldridge struck Bisset as he was trying to save the bag, and a fight ensued, during which witness went outside, and on her return found Aldridge bleeding from a wound on the temple. Aldridge, who left the house to follow Bisset, was brought back in a fainting condition by one Rose. Aldridge bled very much, and his clothes were covered with blood. When the two men were talking about accounts, there were a bottle of rum and a tumbler on the table. Both men were drunk, Bisset less so than the other. She last saw the tumbler in Bisset’s hands, whilst she was standing at the door of the hut. When she next saw it, it was lying broken on the floor, and surrounded by blood. Weapons were used during the quarrel. Bisset afterwards said that he struck deceased with the tumbler, and was very sorry for it. The second day after the quarrel deceased complained of the cold affecting his temple. Deceased seemed quite well on the day* of his death.

Corroborative evidence was given by Richard Rose and James DingwelL The latter deposed that on the 29th uit- Bisset came to her house, and in reply to witness’s remark about “fighting again,” said that “ George ” had burned his papers, and that he had “given him something to remember also that deceased had struck j mm with a glass, and that he had thrown it back again and struck deceased on the head. Bisset was quite drunk whilst speaking to witnessv A day or two after witness saw deceased, who said he was getting on “ right enough;” there had only been a drunken spree. Bisset and deceased were always on friendly terms. . Dr JDrysdale deposed to having, in company with Dr Payne, of the ship Waikato, made a post mortem examination of the body. The wound en the temple, about an eighth-of-an- j inch long, did not extend to the bone; conse-

quently there was no fracture. The mnsole in the vicinity of the wound was very much discolored, as if from a blow. The brain was generally congested, and there were small collections of pus in several places on the exterior. Contrary to expectations, that part of the brain which seemed most healthy was situated nearest to the seat of injury on the temple. The wound in the temple, which was only a cut, might have been inflicted with a piece of a broken tumbler. Death was caused by disease of the brain, but he could not say how the disease was induced; probably the congestion was not of long standing, but the pus found exteriorly might have been longer. A blow from the tumbler produced would tend to accelerate death where the brain was so much diseased. The pus might have been produced through deceased’s intemperate habits. The jury returned a verdict that deceased’s death resulted from disease of the brain, brought on by excessive drinking and accelerated by a blow upon the temple; but that there was no evidence to show how that blow was inflicted, Bisset was removedin custody.