THE MURDER OF A WOMAN AT INVERCARGILL.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 6, Issue 331, 11 December 1865, Page 1

THE MURDER OF A WOMAN AT INVERCARGILL.

(From the Southland Tiroes, November 22 ) We lately alluded to the sudden death of a woman named Catherine Farrar, whose dead body was discovered on the morning of the loth mstant, in a small whare in Spey-street, and under circumstances which created suspicion that the woman had come by hep death bv violence* Since then owing to a hat and stick, known to be the property of Mr D. B. M'Connell, the Eegistrar of the Supremo Court here, having been found on the premises, and the result of the post mortem examination of the body leading to the conclusion that the woman’s death had been caused by blows on the head. Mr M‘Connell has been arrested on the charge of wilful murder. It appears from the evidence elicited at the inquest that the deceased, who was a laundress, before retiring to rest the night previous to the discovery of the murder, had arranged with a female friend, one Dora Walker, to be called by her at seven o clock next morning. On this woman going to call the deceased the following morning, she observed the door of the whare was ajar, and having the deceased and receiving no reply, she went in, and found her lying dead on the floor near the door, in her night dress. She then called a neighbour, John Hart, who, with a woman, went in and examined the body, upon which they found several bruises as well as on the face and head. On search being made the hat and stick belonging to Mr M'Connell werp discovered in the house, and the police having been called in, these articles were at once identified by them as his property. On being questioned, be denied that he had been there, but when told his hat and stick had been found in the house, he admitted he had gone there on the night of the murder, for the P ur ß9 3e of getting a light, as he had known deceased. for some time. That she opened >tho door with a lighted lamp in her hand ; that the lamp was blown out by the wind, and his hat blew off; and ho lost his stick and left them both behind him, the deceased stating that she would send them to his house the following morning. The testimony of Dr Monkton, who conducted the post mortem examination, was clear and explicit, and went to prove that the woman’s death was caused by blows on the head by some blunt instrument such as the stick before referred to. The jury, after hearing the evidence of a great number of witnesses, returned a verdict that the deceased died by violent means, and that strong suspicion attached to M'C’onuell, the accused. The particulars of this most dreadful crime seemed to be shrouded in mystery, and the strong circumstantial evidence against the accused, viz., the finding of his hat and stick in the room where the dead body was found—a fact as a learned judge has said, which “cannot lie,” seems to warrant the suspicion that ho is in some way connected with it. Still it is difficult to imagine what motive the accused could have had for the crime, and, as an eminent writer on the subject says, “an action without a motive, would be an effect without a cause, a presumption is consequently created in favor of innocence from the absence of all apparent inducement to the commission of the imputed offence.” On the subject of circumstantial evidence, however, a distinguished statesman and orator has advanced in unqualified terms, supported, he alleges, by the learned, that “ when circumstantial proof is in its greatest perfection, that is, when it is most abundant in circumstances, it is much superior to positive proof.” In this case the public mind is naturally led to the strong presumption of tbo guilt of the accused, from the evidence of the articles left by him in the house, and, while admitting his having left them there, ho tells a possible story as to how ho camo to do so. We would, however, recommend the greatest caution to bo cxccrcised in forming an opinion on the evidence at present before tbe public, as another investigation will, wo are informed, take place before the Eesident Magistrate on Saturday next, when it is not at ail improbable some further facts may be elicited which will throw a different light upon the affair. It is but fair to state that the stick found showed no trace of having been used for the murderous attack.