PUKEKAWA MURDER

Hokitika Guardian, 22 November 1920, Page 4

PUKEKAWA MURDER

v A DPR ESS TQ Tjijfl -JURY. FOR THE DEFjSNCD. AUCKLAND, Nov 19. The trial of Samuel John Thorn, charged with the murder of Sidney Seymour Eyro at Bukekawa on August fs4th was continued to-day. Mr Martin announced that he would call no further evidence for the Crown. Mr Singer then addressed the jury for tho defence. He pointed out that if the verdict was adverse the Judge must pass sentence of death. It was the duty of the Crown to prove to tho last inch the necessity to take a human life. They would remember that at the inquest the accused, who was a compellable witness, and had refused on his counsel’s advice to answer questions, had on oath given an eiyphatic denial that he committed the murder. With reference to 1 lie conversation between Taylor, the h'otol-keepor and Thorn, when witness Slnigar was a. mere listener, the jury would bo satisfied not only that the accused’s remark was not an admission, but was a natural answer to what bad previously transpired. Cotin sel said ho thought he could show th-if. were the gravest doubts in the case, and that there was not only a possibility, but an extreme probability, that it was not the accused but someone else who committed the murder. The report given to Detective-Sergeant Cummings that Thorn had been seen ojifcside on the night, of the murder was iir.true It ( anyone had seen him, evidence would have been given Circumstantial evidence must be strong in every link. The expert Hazard, be might call hint “tin? hazardous expert,” and two doctors declared'that the shot was necessarily fired from outside the window, when the same angle could have been obtained by moving the bed. For some weeks Eyre was sleeping heavily. Was he given something or had ho taken something to make him sleep? Was he such a heavy sleeper that he would not-bo disturbed by the moving of the hod? Outside the house there were no footmarks and no finger-prints, flic .Crown’s tliepry was based on a planned mprder. W,as it unreasonable to suppose that those who planned it, did so that .everyone should believe that Eyre was shot from outside tho window'? Mr Singer commented on the fact that the contents of deceased’s stomach had not been analysed. That was nearly as extraordinary as the fact that there was no evidence of footmarks hv the window. In regard to the horseshoe prints in the mud, these had only been traced for 4 V miles. If these marks were the wonderfully distinct things they were said to be, why were they not traced to Granville’s place? Surely that cast considerable doubt upon the suggestion that they wore made by “Micky’s” shoes. A detective had examined some 1300 horses, of which 418 were shod. Tt might that the 419th horse lipd had his slices taken off before the police arrived. If it could have been shown conclusively that the ’ marks were made on the night of Tuesday August 24th it might have slightly strengthened the ©rown’s case. It had been admitted by the Crown that even if it was proved that they were “Micky’s” shoe marks at the post, that did not prove that Thorn was there, that night. The question of motive was one of the most important in the ease. It was important in the case of circumstantial evidence. It was a great peg upon .which the Crown had hung its hat. Even strong evidence of motive was not sufficient. Mrs Eyre had said that the accused had her in hispporer.w r er. Did tin*, jury think anyone could get that calm, cold callous, calculating woman in his power, or would she be the ono to put tentacles around some man? Here lav the destruction of the Crown’s theory of motive. )Vhon Thorn packed up his things more than once, that woman, who hated him, despised him, feared him, instead of saying “Here is a month’s wages. Get out for heaven’s sake,” asked him “What is the matter? What are you going for?” Then in regard to the advertisement. She showed it to her husband, but never asked about certain letters Eyre received from abroad, and which he burned immediately he read them. Was the advertisement put in the paper by some one connected with the murder? The jury must note that Mrs Eyre’s attitude had been that of a. woman who did not care or had some animosity towards her husband. Could a woman admitting misconduct as she had done, have had any regard for him? Mr Singer added that it had been sug gested thaf counsel had cast a, slur on a dead man. His Honour: If you were not making a charge of improper conduct against the husband, I do not know what you meant.

Mr Singer: I made no such charge. ] am not suggesting it is a crime or a weak thing to use bad language. lam suggesting that this woman was of such a nature .that no ordinary man would have failed to use bad language towards her. I invite you gentlemen from her evidence to say that if he did not use bad language to her, then be was an absolute angel. Did slio deserve it? Am I casting a slur on the dead by saying that this man called her bad names? There arc no names I have in my vocalbulury which I think this woman does not deserve. ,

With regard to incidents on the night of the .murder, counsel said that Mrs Eyro could not tell within two hours when the dog barked. If that was so, then tho barking could have been before she went to bed. If the evidence raised the question whether it was possible that Mrs Eyre fired tho shot, then the accused was entitled to benefit. There was no flurry, fear or horror on her part when counsel repeatedly referred to her husband’s brains and blood, . and showed her a horrible photograph. Had they even seen a calmer demeanour? "Was there any meaning in that? She bad admitted that on the night of tho murder she was satisfied it was Thorn’s footsteps she heard, and also his gun, and she admitted she told her children not to mention her familiarity with Thorn, because it ‘might be the means of hanging an innocent man.” They were "significant words. Why should she come hero and blast her reputation? Counsel presumed slio would rather have her reputation basted than ho tried for murder. That was likely her choice. Why did she not tell tho police that she heard Thorn’s steps? The

nosfc conclusive fact in the case, said :oiinsel, was that when accused asked Urs Eyre on September' 4th, why she inspected him she replied, because, unler the'circumstances ho was the only , me she c chi hi think of. Did the jury lot think slip would have answered, ‘Why Sam I heard you?” Possibly .here was someone other than Mrs Gyre or tho accused who was in tho mse. Mr Singer concluded his address at 12.25 p.m. HIS HONOR SUMS UP. €• Nfartin did not address tlie jury. e Chief Justice, in summing up, •eferred to Mr Singer’s remarks about Mrs Eyre. The jury, he said, started with the fact that tho woman and the man did wrong. There was the question of motive. What was the position if the accused? If the' evidence r.-ts true, after the husband’s return the licensed had made what was practically threats against him. Hfc desired the woman. He was dominated by love or j lust for her. They could use whichever j word they wished; it. did not matter It might lie that this desire to get the woman led him to commit this great crime. If the jury came to the <<mclusion, in the event of the other evidence being correct, that Thorn was in the neighbourhood of Eyre’s house on the night of tho murder, if he was dominated by this lust, love some people called it, then ho might have wanted to get rid of Eyre. It was suggested tjrat the crime might have been committed by Mrs Eyre, hut that was not suggested by the prisoner himself. Ho had denied the suggestion that it was done by her or the family, if it was done by her, where was the gun? One gun in the place had not been fired for about a month. “Can there he any shadow of suggestion,” asked liis Honour, “that you, as honest men, can rely upon to say that this shot was fired by some person in the house?” The accused had not suggested that. On the contrary, lie suggested that it might have been fired from outside. If the suggestion did not come from Thorn, it was not necessary to go further into it. But there was the gun found in the accused’s possession. That had been fired about the same time as r!ie gun that killed Eyre. Ris Rono.ir added that if the jury come to the conclusion that the deceased was shot f v:mi outside, it did not matter what slatemens Mrs Eyre made. She was not the person who committed the murder. He would not comment on the , suggested charge against her. He tho.ig-it that that charge shoulc! not he considered by the jury unless the evidence pointed inevitable to her. Could they say that any evidence pointed to ,ic-r at all? After a. long Retirement, the jury intimated that there was no chance of an nffl'Pmmit nnrl n linn- fninl i«»no ~.,.#1