Untitled

Manawatu Herald, Volume L, Issue 40011, 17 October 1929, Page 4

OORONIAL INQUIRY.

people in England to hear -about it. Many times he was up all night unable to sleep. Mrs'. Wright said that one night they had a row about midnight and Sam Thomson got up to keep them apart. When there was a row Wright always pulled all the pictures down and threw them on the floor.

Mr. {Petersen submitted at this stage that this evidence could not help the Court in''any way. The expert evidence had been to the effect that if a murder was committed, there was nothing to show who had done the deed. Evidence as to the domestic relations between Mr. and Mrs. Wright could not help and might throw a fearful suspicion on somebody who could not answer. It was clear nobody could say who had committed the crime if there was one. Mr. Fraser: The lire made a clean sweep and il think I am justified in hearing all evidence that might help in solving the mystery. ‘Senior-Detective Quirke: It is painful for us but we have to bring out all the facts, good and bad. Answering further questions, witness said that, at times Wright would talk like a gentleman and at other times was very peculiar and" very funny. Sometimes she tho light he wasn’t normal mentally. Mrs. Wright was a good, hardworking woman, and Thomson was a simple lad devoted to the Wright family. Westlake was straightforward and very exact. ’ Win. Gerald Davis, farmer, of Rongotea, said Wright bought his Rongotea farm from witness’s father. Wright did not make the place pay and it was eventually returned to the trustees of the estate. That was at the. end of June last. Wright was in a very had financial way then, owing the trustees over £6OO for interest, power, etc. On consideration of the property being returned Jtlie trustees gave him a clean receipt for all these debts;" The land had gone' back under Wright who was a bad fanner. Witness did not consider him a normal man.

“He used to visit jn|e to discuss financial matters,” said Mr. Davis, “and after staying 1 all day I was as wise at the end as when he started. I would not have been surprised if lie had gone mad.” To Mi’. Petersen, witness said lie knew little of Wright’s financial position apart from the mortgages except that lie owed a. fair amount of money. The trustees gave him a great deal of latitude and assisted him all they could.

To Senior-Detective Quirke: There was .a bill of sale over Wright’s stock and if the deed was executed, Wright would he practically penniless. % Win. Matheson, farmer, of Rongotea, related how Wright had not made good on his Rongotea farm. He was going backwards instead of ahead. Witness had taken Mrs. Wright, and children ns far as he could in bis car, to their Himatangi home. Just before they left Mrs. WVight stayed at witness’s place for two nights and Wright for one night. “Mlrs. Wlright made ia confidant of me,” continued Mr. Matheson, “and told me that Wright had put her out of the house at 2 o’clock one morning, stating he didn’t wish to see liter again. She said she stopped out on the road for about an hour and then went back. Wright had opened the door and said: ‘This will be enough of this.’ ”

“On another occasion is'he said she had. the firing 1 pins taken out of: the gun because she was frightened of hen* husband.”

Wright, according to witness, was a hard imian to understand and had been like that for the nine years witness knew him.

The young man Thomson was simple but good-natured. Mrs. Wright was a. good woman and hard working. Arthur Hill, funnelr, of Rongotea, also deposed that Wright was a peculiar sort off man: whom one could never follow. Wright had even suggested Hint his children were

not all his own hut those who knew the family would say that that was a lie. On one occasion witness heard Wright mumbling to himself as he went, along the road. He was saving: ‘They’ve got the lot — they’ve got fho lot.” Wright seemed to have a drop of beer aboard at the time.

The cattle sold as Wright’s at TTimatangi recently showed many signs of having gone .hack in condition since leaving Rongotea. Wright had certainly not improved his. position by going on to Westlake's farm. “I can’t understand any farmer going thorp' at all,” added witness.To Mr. Peterson: Nobody believed the remark Wright liaYl about his children. If Wright was in the habit of saying queer things, that was just one of them. Mr. Hill said he had always found -Mrs. Wright a 'good; woman.

WEIGHT NOT A NORMAL MAN.

Albert Henry Burgess, farmer, ’of Rongotea, said ho had known Wright since 1913, before he was married. He later knew Mrs. Wright and they were frequent visitors to witness’s house. A short while before Wright left 'Rongotea in July he called at witness’s place for advice in regard to his financial position. He was not a successful farmer and in witness’s opinion was not a normal man. The general opinion of the people who knew him was that he was not normal. He was an intelligent man however. Wright did not get any relief from his financial embar-

rassment as fair as witness knew and his position was certainly causing him some concern. At the time Wright last saw witness he had not contemplated going to West-lakes place nor did he have any place in view. He had nowhere to go at that time if lie had to leave the place he was on. Witness knew the .farm Wright was on well. There was nothing wrong with the place to prevent him making a living off it. The blame of the failure to work the holding profitably was solely attributable to Wl’ight himself. He was neither a good farmer lfbr an industrious man." He was not mentally a strong man. Thomson was a simple innocent lad absolutely harmless and witness did not think there was any vice in him. Witness corroborated previous witness in regard to Mrs. Wright.

To Mr. Peterson: Witness knew nothing of any trouble between Wright and his wife except from witness’s own wife who was a confidant of Mrs. Wright. Wright was attached to his children. Any trouble would possibly have been attributed to Wright’s erratic temperament.

, Martha Elizabeth Burgess, wife of previous witness, deposed that she'knew Mr. and Mrs. Wright well, they having been visitors to witness place both before and after their marriage. Witness last spoke to Mr. Wright over the ’phone the day of hjs sale at Rongotea. He t hen said he was' going to a place four miles from witness’s place. Wright was not a sensible, sane, man, and usually spoke in a joking manner. Mrs. Wright rang- up one morning and said her husband had been playing up and had thrown pictures about and interfered with boxes and had thrown the linen about. Mrs. Wright gave no reason for the conduct. Tho incident was about three years ago. Mi’s. AVright had told her more recently however, that AVright always seemed to start his quarrels at right- time. She never gave any reasons for these outbursts of temper, but said bar husband was in the habit of catching her by the throat on such occasions. Corroborative evidence was also given as to Thomson’s and Mrs. Wright’s temperaments. Mrs. AVVight told witness on one occasion that she had-sent for her father.

GUNSMITH’S EVIDENCE

Hillias Emmanuel Bergerson, lock and gunsmith, Palmerston N., tendered expert evidence in regard to the shot gun produced. He said the weapon was a double-barrel of Conway make, 12 bore shotgun with a left choke barrel. Witness said the hole in the skull could easily have been made with a shotgun if the charge had been fired at close range from a choke barrel. Witness identified the grape-like clusters taken from the skull as No. 3 shot. The hole could be caused if the gun was fired at the victim from a distance of five or six feet. Had the right barrel been used a larger hole would have resulted. The remains of the gun produced or a similar sized gun could have made the hole in the skull. Witness examined the cartridges found in the ruins which, lie said, were all 12 guage cartridges. They were all damaged by fire, but witness could not say when they were fired or the age of the cartridge.

This concluded the evidence on be half of the police.

CORONER’S A 7 ERDICT

In summing up, Mir. Fraser said that in reviewing the evidence one thing' was apparent and that was the fine investigations made by the police and detectives. The detectives pushed inquiries in every direction and interviewed over one hundred persons and twenty-live witnesses had tendered evidence and as far as any person could judge, no possible avenue had been left unexplored by the police which might east any light on the tragedy. The medical evidence which had 'been tendered had been very full and complete. Drs. King' and Wyllio had been very explicit in their evidence. The post mortem examination carried out by these two medical men had established the fact beyond doubt that eight persons were • present in the dwelling and met their, death when the house was burnt down. The hole in the skull was the hardest problem they had been confronted with and lie did not think that the mystery .surrounding the wound would ever be solved. The question was: “W)ho killed who and why?” If that question could be answered then they might know something of the cause of the tragedy,.but it was his opinion that no one would know. Was the person to whom the skull with Ith-e hole in it belonged intentionally killed or was the killing accidental? It was impossible to rule either theory out. Suicide was impossible as tile medical evidence proved that it would have been impossible for such a wound to have been self-inllicted. In his twentyfive years’ experience as coroner, he had never encountered such a completely baffling case. The fire had made such a clean sweep that there, remained little other than the medical evidence to go by. Tlje possibility that the tragedy was committed by some outsider was possible, but as far as was known there was no motive for such a murderous attack. The possibility of this being the solution of the niystolry was remote in the extreme. The building was very isolated and all the witnesses had stated that it would have been impossible for a stranger to locate the house in the dark except by accident. That theory could be ruled out. It appeared that the tragedy was confined to the inmates of the house. A lot of evidence had been heard concermng the financial position of Wright. He may not lia.ve been a normal man and undoubtedly had

had a lot of worry, but there Was not one shred of evidence to prove that Wright was guilty in any shape or form. 'There was no evidence that Thomson was the*guilty person either. The skull with the shot hole in it belonged to either Thomson or AVright. The rest was blind conjecture and the police would even admit this. Three bodies, those of Mr. and Mrs. AVright and Thomson were found in the one room. The shotgun supposedly the cause-of the tragedy was found in AVestlaJke’s room, Westlake being located in another room. Owing to Westlake's imperfect eyesight it was impossible that the gun was fired by him if it was fired. That confined suspicion to Wright and Thomson and no one could say which one tired the shot or whether it was intentional or accidental, and no one could say whether the fire was intentional or accidental. The mystery would never be 'cleared up. Personally he could see no solution to the mystery. The police had neglected nothing and no one would ever know the truth. 'The verdict would be: —

“That the eight victims met their deaths on 'September 6th while living in a house at Himatangi, owned by John Brown Westlake, which was totally destroyed by fire and so burnt and deemed unrecognisable except by medical evidence.”