THE HART MURDER

Hokitika Guardian, 10 February 1926, Page 2

THE HART MURDER

MOTHER ON TRIAL. CROWN PROSECUTOR’S ADDRESS. [by telegraph—per rnras association.] DUNEDIN, Feb. <>. Ar the criminal sittings, Mrs Ellen Hart was charged with the murder of her three children, Lindsay Alexander aged 5. Andrew William 3 years and 5 months, and Nola Ellen 14 months, at Kaikorai on Nov. 9th. The accused was defended by Mr Calkin and pleaded not guilty. In his address, Air Adams, the Crown Prosecutor, said there- was but one defence, and that was insanity. Whatever was the jury’s decision, tho issues wore extremely grave, while he asked them to bring in insanity il they found the grounds existing lor such. They must remember that ii the ground.- did mu exist there might lie far-ivaibing results as the safety of unprotected children rested upon a jury’s verdict in eases like this. Hie facts -0.-nn-d to show that the accused was conscious of her act. A\ lien the accused was before the 1.0-aci* C.ouit little was known about her and she was coming to a mental hospital for observations a kid evidence of such observations would Ik> called. Reviewing the evidence Air Adams said the accused had remarked to a neighbour that “they will hang me for ibis.” showing she recognised the nature of the act. Then there was a note left for her husband indicating contemplation of the act. Alargaret I'l'ton, a married woman, residing next door to the accused, detailed the discovery of the murders bybeing called by Mrs Hart from her back door, who, in anwser to a question said: “I’ve killed my kids.-” and later stated: “T loved those kids.” The accused said she had had an argument with her husband the previous night, and added: “T suppose 1 shall bang for this.” She also stated; “He wanted me to live with him. 1 couldn't stay with him on his terms.” The last witness’s husband and Eva Selina AlacDonald. residing with the last two witnesses, gave evidence of having found the Children dead. Gladys Blanche Newell gave evidence of a dispute between the accused and her husband, which had been settled. Witness went to Mrs Ufton’s house immediately after the tragedy. Accused threw her arms around her neck, and said: “Whatever you think, its nothin, but. religion that has been the cause ol it.” She said she killed the children on the spur of the moment. She asked where they would go to, and she wanted to know whether they would suffer lor her sins. Mrs Mar’ appeared to be very much Upset, amasked what they would do with her Later, she became calm and scenic to realise what she had done. Dr Evans Gage, surgeon, detailed hi: visit to the house on Hie morning o' the tragedy, and the injuries to the children, and also his ennver*:ii ioi with the accused. She appeared quite calm. She told him that she did uni know what had come over her to kill her children. He had questioned the accused to ascertain her mental condition. She told him that she left schoo' at the age of 15 years and had afterwards assisted her -mother at home. She had repeatedly asserted that disagreements with her husband were not the cause of the trouble. He had learned that the accused was blind Dir some time when about IS.

Under cross-examination ho said the act of the woman was not that of a rational person, but he admitted th.af lie was nuzzled to define her state of mind at the time. Called by the defence. Dr Hall, specialist in eye, ear and throat diseases, said ho had examined the accused on Saturday last, and had found the accused had only half vacuity of the right eye aml about 15 per cent of the left. The history of the disease of the accused was quite definite. The blindness with which she had been afflicted had lasted nine months. During the examination he came to the conclusion that die accused was abnormal, as she had shown no signs ol emotion or feeling when he had occasion to question her about her children. In fact she appeared perfectly cheerful. Mr Callan read evidence from a doctor who attended the accused during her illness with her eyes, stating that it was caused by a hereditary disease. Ensign Coombes, Probation and Samaritan Officer, said she had kept a diary of accused’s behaviour. Accused was interested in trivialities, and did not suffer from a want o 'i appetite or sleeplessness. She suffered periods of worry over trifles and wondered if her fowls would he attended to, or if the cat would he fed. Then she would have fits of weeping and on one occur sion she had asked leave to play with the Ensign’s watch. On the day ol her depart lire for Seac-liff for observation, she had remonstrated with her husband because he had a now suit and she did not have a new costume to which she considered she was entitled. Since her return from Seac-liff, the accused freqeuntly amused herself by playing dance music on the piano. At times the accused seemed to he trying to remember tilings. She had never | detected in the accused the natural ’• emotion of a mother. |

Henry .Merewith Buchanan, lately .Medical Superintendent at Seacliff Mental Hospital, said he first saw accused on the day of the tragedy. He was then surprised at the attitude of the patient, for lie certainly expected her to exhibit more emotion than she did. He detected no sign of fear or worry about her position. She told him that for four or five weeks she had found herself very absent-minded. On the morning of the tragedy she had a feeling that everything was pulling her down. When asked about the tragedy. her replies were: “I don’t know. 1 can’t remember.” He found her ideas limited. She had been under his observation from December 2nd until Friday last, and lie never detected an attitude such as he would expect from a mother if she were fully conscious of what she had done. Her interests were very superficial, like those of a young child. Her letters to her husband concerned trivialities in some degree, lie said, in the present case, dealing with mental disease in some form or other was present when the dead was done. Asked whether he considered the accused insane in the eves of the law, lie replied: “ In my opinion. 1 think the murders were caused by an uncontrollable impulse. Whether .-.he was actually aware of the deed or not, I am unable to sav.”

His Honour: “She understood, l suppose that she was “ cutting the throats of her children.” Witness: “ I could not even say that.”

Continuing, the witness safil lie did not think it was a case of epileptic aiitonoinism. He detailed several observations with the accused. Any indications of worry she had given were merely transitory. As mwital tests showed her intelligence aproached that of a normal child of twelve lie did not think she was fully conscious through-

out the crime. William Marshall MacDonald, medical specialist in nervous diseases, said accused had told him she was much surprised at the evidence given in the Lower Court, so much of it was new to her. She said she had been shown a picture of her baby published in n paper and said: “ T think that is the cruellest thing tliev have done to me.” Then she hurst • into tears. Certain indications pointed to a change in her mental condition. Prior to the tragedy, she said she became forgetful and

lost her appetite. Witness mentioned several facts pointing to mental disease. Brain tissue that had been subnormal might sudden break down in a literal sense. She might have had knowledge of the nature of her act but in the full and complete sense he was satisfied that she did not. He did not agree that the fact that she intended to commit- suicide proved she was aware she had done wrong.