SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1453, 12 October 1878, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Fbidat, Octobee 11. [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Johnston.] MUEDBE. | The following is the conclusion of the case of Eckius Hoff, charged with murder : i Matthias Horak—l am a blacksmith, at Oxford. I was present at the Oxford Police station when Hoff was there. I saw the Erisoner. Sergeant McDonald, asked him if e knew why he was in the prison. Hoff did not answer him. McDonald said “ You are in prison for murder —for killing your wife.” Hoff said, “ Ja," which means “ yes” in English. I don’t think he understood Sergeant McDonald. Sergeant McDonald told me to ask him what he had got to say. I spoke to him in Bohemian, and asked him what he had got to say. He told me he was working in the bush outside the house, cutting the scrub, and that about ten o’clock he went inside the house and wanted breakfast, but that Mrs Hoff wonld not give it to him. He then took the tomahawk and walked to the table to cut tobacco. He grumbled at the wife that she would not give him breakfast. She walked to the fireplace and took a piece of iron, and went to strike him with it. He turned around and hit her with the tomahawk. He then went outside, threw the tomahawk away, and left the place. Before he left the place he said he took some coals from the fire, put them in the bed, and set the house on fire, and left. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—Hoff was a very quiet man generally. John Edward Weld I am a legally qualified medical practitioner, residing at Oxford. OntheSLh July I went to Barrett’s hut. It was about 12.30 when I got there, and the hut was on fire. Lee, Barrett, and some] others were there. I saw a woman there in a dying state. There was a superficial wound of some five inches long on the face, and a large wound on the head. The latter might have been caused by a blunt instrument. I superintended the removal of the woman to the hotel. She died within a few minutes after being conveyed into the hotel. I found a series of five oj six wounds extending from the top of the head to the back of the ear. They were continuous, apparently the result of several blows. There was a wound at the back of the right ear, nearly severing it, one at the back of the head breaking the skull, and one on the left side breaking the skull. They were eight wounds in all, from four of which the brain protruded. I think it probable that all the wounds were produced by the same instrument. I should say most likely that the tomahawk produced was the instrument which produced the wounds. There must have been eight separate blows. The blow on the cheek was given from the front, and the rest from behind. The wounds could not have been self-inflicted. I made a pott’

mortem examination. The cause of death was injury to the brain by the wounds described. I examined the clothing of the woman. A portion of it was scorched. The forehead of the woman was also scorched, and the skin peeling therefrom. The infliction of such wounds with such an instrument would require considerable force. Mr Joynt did not cross-examine this witness. Mary King—l remember the Bth July. I reside about twenty-five chains from Barrett’s house. Prisoner was at my house shortly after eleven o’clock. He had no hat, but had a half gun. I smelt kerosene whilst he was there. His hair was rough, and he seemed not right in his head. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt —The Hoffs and Barrett lived in my house last May twelvemonths. They lived two months and a half with us. Barrett built his own house, and they then went away. There was a disturbance in the house between Hoff and Barrett about Hoff’s wife. Hoff used to abuse his wife about Bill Barrett. Hoff had called his wife a in Bohemian. I saw Bill Barrett strike Hoff with his hand on account of his wife. My husband said that all three should go away because of the fighting. I have only heard Hoff find fault with his wife about her and Bill Barrett. I have not seen Hoff angry except when ho was a little drunk. This closed the case for the Crown. Mr Joynt asked his Honor if he intended to finish the case that night ? His Honor replied in the affirmative. Mr Joynt said that he could not physically feel able to address the jury at length after the examination of his witnesses. His Honor thought Mr Joynt would be quite able to discharge his duty to his client. Mr Joynt opened his case to the jury. He should endeavour to prove that the unfortunate prisoner at the bar had been subjected to the grossest possible indignities at the hands of his wife and W. Barrett. The unfortunate man was thus goaded almost to madness, and the woman showed by her very address to him that she loathed and detested him, and that all her feelings were in favor of Barrett. He should endeavour to prove by evidence that the treatment of Hoff by his wife and Barrett had been most cruel. It would be perhaps impossible for him to deny that the unfortunate woman met her death at the hands of the prisoner : but the evidence he should put before them would, he trusted, be sufficient to take his crime out of the degree of murder, and place in that of manslaughter, The whole nature of the unfortunate prisoner at the bar was soured by the brutal treatment he had received at the hands of Mrs Hoff and Barrett. It was only when the man got artificial stimulus that his nature was roused in a slight degree, and after this had subsided he was flung on one side to recover from his fit of passion as he best could. What he contended was, that the prisoner had been goaded to fury from time to time by the acts of the deceased and the witness Barrett.

His Honor pointed out that Mr Joynt in this line might put himself in this position that the evidence of anything of this kind might only tend to shew express malice. Mr Joynt said that he desired to point out that the prisoner had told one of the witnesses that his wife on the morning of the fire, had struck at him with a piece of iron. His Honor was aware of that, but it must be recollected that supposing Hoff’s wife had struck him with the iron, and he having a tomahawk in his hand had struck her one blow, it would be fair ground for reducing the charge to manslaughter. But supposing the prisoner to strike seven or eight blows, there would be evidence of malice. Mr Joynt saw the very great difficulty of the position, but still he felt he would not be doing his duty to his client if he omitted to take the line he proposed. He should ask the jury to believe that there had been criminal connection between Barrett and Mrs Hoff, and for that purpose he should call evidence. Mr Joynt then called evidence as follows : Frank Garlick—l was at the inquest at Ferguson’s Hotel on July 10th. I saw Bill Barrett there. He said, “ That is a fine trick Hoff killing his wife, All women are •ft , and if this is so, all husbands would have to kill their wives. George Alfred White— I was manager for Richardson and Co,, at Glentui. Prisoner and his wife and Barrett lived at Glentui for about two years. There was continual quarrelling between Hoff and his wife. On two occasions Hoff came to me and complained to me of being ill-treated. On the first occasion I went to Hoff’s house, where I saw the prisoner, who had his head bandaged up, Barrett, and Hoff’s wife. I asked Barrett what he had been doing to Hoff, and he said he had been defending himself against Hoff. On the second occasion, which was nearly two years after, I went over and asked Barrett what had been up, and he said there had been another row. Hoff gave me a piece of scantling which was covered with blood. I told the Hoffs to go away, and Mrs Hoff said she would not go away. I told Barrett to tell her that if she did not I should find means to get rid of her. So far as I recollect, Mrs Hoff said that her husband might go, but she would not. Mrs Hoff treated her husband in a very contemptuous way. She used to call him an “ old schwine.” Hoff, before ho knew Barrett, was a first-class man; after that he seeded to be a thoroughly broken-hearted and crashed man, except when in passion, or in drink, when he was a perfect fury. John King—Hoff and his wife and Barrett lived at my house for ten weeks. I went to Oxford one evening, and a man asked me why I let those people live in my house. It would be taken for a bad house. When I came home I drove them out. I found them all lying in one room at night. J was angry, and told them I would not have my house made a bad house. It was not Hoff who told me about the people at Oxford, it was another man, John Hahn—l know prisoner and Barrett. I have seen Barrett take up an axe to strike Hoff, and I also saw Barrett with a piece of wood threatening Hoff. Frederick Pevelka—l saw Barrett hammer Hoff with a stick about 4ft. long, Hoff said he had done nothing. Barrett said, “ If I get you somewhere else where nobody will see mo I will kill you dead ; you shall see no more daylight.” Hoff went away for a while, and sat on a stump crying. Mr Joynt, in addressing the jury for the defence, said that he would not ask the jury to pay the greatest possible attention to the case, as he felt sure they would realise the importance of the task before them. They, therefore, should most carefully examine the whole of the surroundings of the case. It was for them to consider whether the prisoner murdered his wife. The evidence was that Mrs Hoff died on the Bth July, and on almost overwhelming evidence it was proved that the prisoner struck the blows which caused the death of his wife. He did not intend to dispute this, but the question was whether, under the circumstances of the case, the striking of these blows amounted to murder or not. In order to reduce it from murder to manslaughter, it was necessary that the jury should arrive at fche conclusion either that the death blow was inflicted in self-defence or under the very greatest of provocation. It would strike the jury at once that where two persons were alone together when the death blow of one was struck, they could have no direct evidence as to how the death blow was struck. Under these circumstances it was necessary that they should look for any outside evidence which would throw any light upon it. He was not prepared to tend any evidence on the subject, but he wished the jury to bear with him while he put before them the lives of these people. The prisoner had been grossly illboated, suffering under indignities which were more than one could be expected to bear. He was, as had been described by one witness, broken hearted, and be asked them to believe that the wrongs and provocations which had been heaped upon him culminated that unfortunate morning in a paroxysm of ruge, in the course of which the blows were inflicted. It appeared to him that, if this broken down wretch was afraid to resent the wrongs he was suffering under, meeting as he did with blows and threats of his life being taken, the probability was that at the moment when the blows were inflicted his unfortunate wife bad goaded him to the infliction ot these blows, and bad roused the

memory of the indignities under which he had so long suffered. It was in evidence that not one blow but many had been struck, thus showing plainly that the unfortunate man had struck again and again until his rage had subsided, when he threw away the instrument. Of the conduct of the witness Barrett, he could hardly speak in sufficient terms of reprooation. Not satisfied with heaping indignities on indignity on this wretched man, Barrett insisted on following them about, and sleeping in the same room, indeed almost in the same bad. This conduct was continued until, as Mr White said, the soul was crushed out of him. Barrett had asked the jury to believe that no improper relations had existed between them, but he (Mr Joynt) asked them whether on the evidence which had been adduced they could believe this. Again Barrett said that Hoff was always brutal to his wife, and that his wife treated him with every consideration. On the contrary it was proved that Mrs Hoff was always treating the unfortunate prisoner in the most contemptuous manner. He would ask the jury to infer from the words used by Barrett to Garlick at, the inquest that Barrett knew that Mrs Hoff had been acting improperly. In many other parts of his evidence, where it was not corroborated, he asked them to discredit Barrett’s evidence. They must recollect that the evidence given by Barrett was contradicted in many points by persons quite removed from the Hoffs, and who must be taken to be unbiassed witnesses. [The learned counsel here referred to the various parts of the evidence where the testimony of the other witnesses directly disproved that given by Barrett.] The whole drift of the evidence was that there existed between Barrett and Mrs Hoff a criminal intimacy. It was true there was no direct evidence of this, but there was enough to raise a very strong presumption that this did exist, and that it raised in the mind of the unfortunate prisoner the feelings which ultimately culminated in the shocking occurrences of that morning. The jury must recollect that Barrett followed the Hoffs from house to house, sleeping in the same room, all the while knowing that the prisoner cherished a feeling of jealousy against him on account of his wife. The nature of his defence was circumscribed within narrow limits. Gross cruelty had been proved as having been inflicted by Barrett upon the unfortunate prisoner before his wife. Possibly when the prisoner had drink in him the memory of his many wrongs overpowered him to such an extent that he felt that he could slaughter Bill Barrett and his wife too. There could be no doubt that the prisoner had struck the blows which had killed his wife. His own confession was so full that they must believe that he was telling the truth. His story must be taken to be a truthful one.

His Honor—lf you take the story of the prisoner, there is the point of law as to provocation given by his wife, which is the only evidence you have. Mr Joynt should ask the jury to believe that there had been a series of insults and degradations throughout heaped upon the unfortunate man. This, coupled with what had taken place on that morning, he should ask them to consider, but his Honor would probably ask them to exclude all consideration of this, but he ventured to ask them if they could disassociate the circumstances which had been going on for years before, and say that this prisoner had no provocation. If they were able to do so, then he could not help complimenting them upon their fortitude. The burning wrongs the unfortunate man had suffered rose upon his mind more keenly and bitterly that morning than upon any other occasion, and combined to prove an overwhelming provocation. His Honor said that what he should lay down as the law was that to reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter the provocation deemed sufficient in law should have been given immediately antecedent to the crime being committed. Mr Joynt had the greatest possible respect for the ruling of his Honor the Judge, but he said this, that it was impossible with the facta before them, it was almost impossible to put on one side the systematic and brutal acts of cruelty under which the poor wretch suffered. It was plainly to be seen that the jury could not arrive at any other conclusion except that Mrs Hoff and Barrett were in criminal intercourse. The jury had a very difficult and painful task before them, and he asked them to give the greatest possible consideration to the case. Whatever the principle of law might be which would be laid down by his Honor the Judge, it would be impossible for them to put on one side the cruelties to which the prisoner had been subjected. As to Barrett there could be no doubt that he had perjured himself before them that day ; that he had carried on a criminal intercourse under the very nose of the prisoner was also pretty plain. That he had also given his evidence with great animus was evident, and he now no doubt wished the cup of misery of the unfortunate man to be filled to overflowing by the verdict of murder being returned by the jury. He asked them to consider the whole case and the overwhelming provocation under which the prisoner was laboring for years, and he confidently asked them to give a verdict of manslaughter. Mr Duncan briefly commented on the evidence, and asked the jury to return a verdict of guilty of murder. His Honor then proceeded to sum up. Before doing so, he asked Mr Joynt whether he had met with cases in the books in which where provocation was proved just before the death stroke there could be a reference to antecedent provocation. Mr Joynt said that there were cases in which antecedent reference bad been made to cases of provocation, which were not far back.

His Honor then summed up. and reminded th/3 jury of the heavy responsibilities which weighed upon thppj, and pointed out that if they felt that it was consistent with the evidence that the full crime had been committed, they were not to allow their judgment to be warped by the reflection as to the sentence which would be passed. The doctrine with regard to provocation was that every unlawful killing by one person of another was deemed murder, unless it was done under circumstances which reduced it either to justifiable homicide or manslaughter. It was also provided that if provocation were given just before the death blow were dealt it was held as manslaughter, unless there were circumstances as to the weapon or the blows, which would bring it within the pale of murder. In the present case the learned counsel for the defence had gone into a great deal of matter which was irrelevant to the present inquiry. Ho did not think that there was any proof that a criminal intimacy existed between Barrett and the wife of the deceased, though the way in which they conducted themselves laid them open to the gravest suspicion. They were asked to believe that the prisoner was provoked against his wife for a long time, and this was a proof t 1 at he entertained an ill-will against hia wife, and therefore that there existed what in law was known as express malice. He should put it in this way, that taking all that the learned counsel had advanced, that the prisoner had been treated as he was said to have been, the law still could not allow of persons taking it into their own hands, and therefore he could not instruct them that the crime could be reduced from murder to manslaughter. Now he was bound to tell them this, that believing every word that the prisoner had said, there was not such provocation as in law would reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter. They knew that admitting the statements to bo true as far ns they went, they did not go far enough. TJiere was no suggestion that Hoff’s wife used the iron, so that he had to defend himself with the tomahawk. Besides this there was the evidence that there were eight wounds on the body. Therefore, it was bis duty to tell the jury that the facts of the case prevented it being reduced from murder to manslaughter. He did not think it necessary to go through the evidence. The whole case turned upon this, that there was no attempt to deny that the death of that woman was caused by the prisoner, and if the jury bejieved the statement of the prisoner they were bound to take the law from him, which was that the provocation of her taking up a piece of iron to go towards the prisoner to strike him was not sufficient as provocation to removb it from

murder to manslaughter. Had Mr Joynt any cases to call his attention to.

Mr Joynt quoted a case from 10 Cox Criminal Cases. His Honor did not think that this case was analogous. The jury must take the law from him, which was that the provocation was not sufficient to reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter. If, however, they wish to shew their sympathy with the prisoner under circumstances of provocation, they knew how to express it. The jury retired at 6.10 p.m. At 6.40 the jury returned into Court with a verdict of Guilty, with a very strong recommendation to mercy. The Registrar—Eckins Hoff, you have been found guilty of wilful murder. What have you to say why judgment should not pass upon you to die according to law ? His Honor —Prisoner at the bar, you have been found guilty by a jury of twelve of your fellow-colonists of the offence of wilful murder. On the evidence, the jury could not, without defying their oaths, have done otherwise than found you guilty. They have accompanied their verdict with a strong recommendation of you to the merciful consideration of the Governor. I have no power or authority to do anything but pass on you the sentence of the law, but I may tell you that I shall forward to his Excellency the Governor the recommendation of the jury, and back it with my own, but I must now pass on you the sentence of death. The judgment of the Court upon you is that you be taken from this place to the place from whence you came, and that in due form of law you bo hanged by the neck until you be dead, and may Almighty God have mercy on your soul. The prisoner was then removed. His Honor, addressing the jury, said that he had very great pleasure in discharging them, with the thanks of the colony and his own for the firmness displayed by them in the discharge of their most onerous duties. The Court then rose.