MAGISTRATE COURT KUMARA

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 19 January 1901, Page 2

MAGISTRATE COURT KUMARA

January 17th 1900,

(Before Messrs T. V. Byrne and Camp bell J. PV.)

Charge of Murder. James Loudon was charged with the murder of James Stephens on Poo 27th 1900. Inspector M’Donnel prosecuted on behalf of flic police. Mr Murdoch appeared for accused. The Inspector said ho would not make any opening remarks, as he submitted the case was one for a jury. The first witness he would call was John Brown. J. Brown, sworn, said: I was assistant barman at Junction Hotel on Pec 27th. About 7 30 p. m. accused was in the bar. I know deceased. Ho came up the passage and into the bar at the time he muttered something that I did not hoar. Ho then went over towards accused and addressing him said “You are no b good,” accused replied: “1 am sight better than you Jimmie” then struck accused about the ind he reeled towards the door followed by deceased. A short tussle took place here, Ther both wont outside and I was them shape up. They both struck out at cno another, but I could not say that they struck home. I next saw James Stephens reeling back past the door. "When ho passed the door ho was lost to my vision. I saw accused, so to speak following him up. 1 couldn’t say whether he had his hands up in fighting attitude.

Shortly after passing the door, I heard a thud, and then saw deceased being carried in, and laid on the sofa. He appeared to bo unconscious when carried in. The accused came back into the bar, immediately after I hoard the fall. When they wore shaping up they both had their coats on. I swear positively I did not sec either with his coat off. When accused came into the bar he had his coat on, I think that was before deceased was carried in,

Another man, Thompson, walked into the bar immediately after, about the time deceased was carried in. Thompson said to accused that he was no man for strikting an old man, and while in the act of telling him this, he was shouldering accused out of the bar. Accused said noth-

ing. A scuffle took place outside the door. It did not last more than five minutes. Accused did - not come back, but Thompson did. He had a mark over the eye, I think it was blood. I did not seo accused again that evening. Deceased remained about an hour and a half lying on the sofa before ho was removed. Ho was unconscious all the time.

By the Bench : Ido not think cither challenged the other in the bar. Stephens had his coat on when carried in.

By Mr Murdoch: Deceased was the aggressor at the start. Arthur Williams, sworn,: said, lam a mail-carrier residing at Dillmans road. I was at the Junction Hotel on the evening of 27th December about 730 p.m. I was standing about ten yards from the parlor door. I saw Louden come out of the bar door and immediately after. When Stephens came out on tho verandah, Louden left it and deceased followed him. Stephens didn’t have his coat off, I am not sure about Louden.

After leaving the verandah they shaped up and Stephens attempted to kick Louden; then he backed away. Then I saw Louden come up and hit him somewhere about the chest, whereupon deceased fell on his back immediately. Stephens laid there. He never moved so far as I could see. He was carried into the parlor in a few minutes. I didn’t notice where Louden went. I remained about five minutes after he was carried in. I didn’t notice any mark on Louden. I saw Thompson come out of the bar with Louden and then “shape up” to one another. I didn’t see any blows struck as I left just then. I couldn’t sry either was drunk, but they were the worse of liquor. By Mr Murdoch: Stephens attempted to kick Louden in the leg. (Accused hei’e showed a mark on las leg said to be the result of the kick.)

Samuel Stephens, sworn, said : I am a miner residing at Dillmanstown. lam a son of deceased. He was 53 old. I remember 27th of .December. There Was a picnic on. I was near the Junction Hotel that evening about 7 30. I was not there when the disturbance took place between the accused and my hither. In consequence of something I heard in reference to it, I went up to accused just on the side of the step of the hotel. I asked Louden if ho had struck my father He told me he did, but not out of illfeeling. I told him if lie had done it I would take my father’s part. We went out side where we had a few blows, and then were separated. I hadn’t seen my father up to this. I subsequently saw him in the Junction Hotel, and be was unconscious. He remained there about an hour. Wo then took him home in a cart. He was all this time unconscious, and we put him to bed. The Dr was sent for to see him at the hotel. He Ordered his removal home, lie lived from the Thursday until a quarter to four on the following Sunday evening. He never recovered consciousness. My father was in liquor that day, not too bad. He could walk about. He was drinking the day before 100. but I did not see him. He had nol been drinking for 15 months previously, lie was a fairly strong man.

By Mr Murdoch : If would bo about 20 minutes after going to the hotel before I saw my father. The doctor was then there, .1 remained nearly all the time with him. About an hour and a half before the occurrence 1 saw my father. He had been ailing previously, complaining of a heavy cold in the chest accompanied with pains. Me had to knock off work on the 20th on account of these pains. During the previous three weeks he was idle one week on account of his ailments. He was in bed two days.

By the Inspector : Ho had the pains in the stomach about a day and a-half. I did not sec deceased vomit until he had taken the powders given by the doctor. I only saw him vomit once after the accident.

Edward Henry Scott ; Am a duly qualified practitioner practising in Kuniara. I was called to see deceased about 8 p.m. on December 27th. I found him lying on the sofa in the front parlor. He was in a stupurose condition. I aroused him and he muttered something like “ all right.” He had a small abrasion on the forehead above the right eye. Ordered him to be removed home. I con'd not say how much his condition was due to drink and how much to injury. I attended him till his death. His condition steadily got worse. Towards the end, about a day before his death, definite local signs showed where the brain was injured. Previously I knew the brain was injured, but did not know the extent. 1 made the postmortem on January Ist. On removing the scalp I discovered a fine linear fracture at the back and right side of the head, involving the whole thickness of the bone. The fracture caused a rupture of a small blood vessel lying between the covering of the brain and the bone. The result was the formation of a large clot of blood, which, pressing on the brain, caused death. The injury to the skull was a fine fracture about 5 inches long, extending from the back of the head to the right temple. The injury appears to have been caused by the head coming in contact with a metalled road or other hard substance. From the mark on the face I should say it would be sufficient to cause a man to fall back. Ihe body was well nourished, all the organs were healthy except for some old attack of pleurisy on the right lung. The fact of deceased being in liquor would make the injury much more dangerous. There was no other mark except a contusion under the right eye, which appeared during the illness.

By tho Bench: I was called up on the Sunday afternoon December :10th to see accused. He showed me a recent bruise on one of his legs. Tho Doctor here examined tho log and said, “I swear it was on tho left leg now after examination.” Accused said he got it from one of them, meaning one of those he had had a fight with, He was suffering from the effects of alcohol and tho braising he got.

Henry Pierson, sworn, said : I drove a trap up to tho Junction Hotel on 27th about 7 130 pm. I was driving past and pulled un a little way off. Louden and Stephens were outside when I came up. They wore facing one another. I could not see Stephens’s position well as some people were between. I first.*ftw Loudon hit Stephens with his fist somewhere in the chest. Stephens fell immediately on his back. Ho said, ‘there.’

John Thomson, sworn, said: I was at the Junction Hotel on December 27th. I remember a disturbance. Tho first disturbance was in the passage about 7 pm. I did not seo xt k ut 1 “ ear “ i( ” 1

found one man in the passage and one outside. Louden was in the passage and Duncan outside. Some people were keeping them apart. I assisted to do so. Duncan had his nose bleeding. Louden had no marks. I remained at tho back. Prom something I was told I went to the front. I saw Stephens being carried inside, I saw' Louden shortly after in the bar, I spoke to him first and asked him what he struck Mr Stephens for. Be said “He struck mo first.” I said, “Never strike an old man.” I then rushed him outside. Wo struck a few blow's and then were parted.

Mr Murdoch objected to the Inspector producing a former statement of the witness contradicting bis present evidence with regard to In’s first remarks to Louden. The Bench ruled against Mr Murdoch. Witness: 1 will not swear flint accused said when [ asked liim what lie struck Stephens for “I ’ll have a go with you too if .you like.” I may have told Sergeant Shirley that London, made that statement. My opinion is that Louden did not make’ it. I will swear I told Sergeant Shirley I shouldered Louden out. F had no conversation with witness Brown on the matter. A few minutes after I saw Duncan and accused fighting alongside the Hotel. They struck only a few blows and were separated. About a quarter of an hour after, I saw Samuel Stephens coming up the road. He challenged Louden, and said “You struck my father ; take it out of me, or out of my hide.” Louden didn’t want to light, but said “ I’m no coward.” He walked

up the road, Stephens following. Shcphens said “Yon must fight.” They came down the road. Twas then accused got a black eye. I think Louden gave in. Court resumed at 2 30 p.m. Cross-examined by Mr Murdoch: I am quite sure that when I saw Louden in the bar he was not aggravating, I don’t know what took place in the bar between Louden and deceased. I was never informed that Louden stood more than anyone else whould have stood. Samuel Stephens wanted to continue the fight but Loudon did not. Louden may have said something more than that “Ho struck me first,” but what it was J cannot remember. I do not remember Louden saying to me, “I did it in self defence Jack.” I may have told Sergeant Shirley that Louden said, “I’ll have a go at you to,” butl could not swear Louden made the remark.

By the Bench : Louden was not the provoker in my case nor that.of Stephen’s (junr.) Re-examined by the Inspector; I quarrelled with Louden because be hit an old man. Ho was no relation of mine. s. Constable Mackenzie, said: I was temporarily in charge of this station some lime back. I beard of the disturbance on the same night about S o’clock. I understood at first that Stephens was badly injured and went to the house to see him. Ho was in bed. I asked him two or three questions but ho did not reply. I first made inquiries on the following Saturday, because I concluded that the case was more serious than I was lead to believe by the Doctor. I interviewed the accused on the following Sunday morning, lie said : Yes, I was in the row, I struck

him in self defence. Prior to this accused asked mo how Stephen’s was, and I I old him that lie was pretty bad. It was then he made the above remark. That was all that passed. I afterwards arrested accused on Monday the 31st. I told him I was arresting him on a charge of murdering deceased. Accused said he wanted to consult his solicitor. I was present when the witness Thomson made the statement to Sergeant Shirley. I remember what ho said regarding it. Mr Murdoch objected, but the bench over-ruled the objection and allowed Thompson’s statement to go in. Constable McKenzie swore that the statement produced was the one referred to. Bertram Frederick Spiers, sworn, said: I was in the bar of the Junction Hotel on ihc evening of December 27th last about 7 30p.m. I saw accused come in. Deceased came in after him. Stephens said to accused; “You’re no good.” Louden replied, “I’m good enough for you ” Deceased then struck accused and knocked him out of the bar door. I did not sec either take off their coat. I saw Stephens strike two or three blows but Louden stopped them. Ho then kicked at Louden. Louden struck deceased about the chest and ho fell back on the road. The back of his head came in contact with the road. He was carried into the hotel. I then went homo. Accused and deceased were both drunk.

Cross-examined by Mr Murdoch : Louden did not provoke Stephens in any way. Stephens had a glass in his hand at the time ho came into the bar. Louden was nearer the bar door than Stephens. The latter said to accused “you arc no good” two or throe times, Louden stood the insult very well, then replied “I’m good enough for you." Stephen struck at accused two or three times and Louden parried them. On one occasion Stephen must have struck Louden to make him reel out of the door. Stephens immediately followed with his hands in a fighting attitude. Stephens made two or thro o kicks at Louden. By the way he kicked at him I took it that Stephens was trying to do Louden grevious bodily injury Stephens was more dragged in than carried.

By the Inspector, I cannot give any reason for not telling yon all that I told to Mr Murdoch, only that Mr Murdoch made it plain. I have not been speaking to anyone about the case except Constable McKenzie and Mr Murdoch. I dont remember Constable McKenzie reading to mo the statement produced when I made it. By the Bench : I would not take the remark made by accused in the bar as a challenge to fight. Constable Mackenzie recalled, swore that the statment produced was the one taken down at Spier’s dictation and read over to him and which he afterwards signed. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Murdoch addressing the Court contended that there was no evidence to justify the case being sent to a jury. Ho maintained that there was not any evidence of murder or manslaughter, or oven of any crime as Louden acted in self-de-fence. After a long discussion the Justices on the bench decided to ammend the charge to one of manslaughter, and committed accused to take his trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court to be held in Hokitika, on Marcli 4th 1901. Accused reserved his defence. Bail was allowed in two securities of £IOO each, and accused in £IOO,