THE CUMBERLAND STREET TRAGEDY.

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 1227, 23 March 1880, Page 2

THE CUMBERLAND STREET TRAGEDY.

(Abridged from the Star.) Robert Butler, alias Donnelly, alias Midway, alias Lee, was brought up at Her Majesty's Gaol this morning, before Mr. I. N. Watt, charged: on remand for that he did, On,.the : 14th : inst. ? - : wilfully kill and murder James Dewar, Elizabeth Dewar, and -Elizabeth; Lindsay Dewar, against..'the . peace, Soyefeigp Lady the Inspector Mallard conducted the' proceedings on behalf of the police. Thomas Aitchisoh (father of the late Mrs. Dewar). and Mrs. Mary Grant repeated the evidence given by tliefrx' at the coroner's inquiry. The latter stated that when she first saw her daughter-in-law she had on her night-dress and her cheix}i3B. Portipfis - of hei* lege wprp posed to yiew, but witness could not say how muchV '[The prisoner during this witness' examination minutely examined the plan- of the house' -where the murder was committed, and then said '' Oh, yes, I understand it very well."] She did'not think she had seen the prisoner before. Iti answPF tfi t<he grjsoner, Mrs. Grant said : ?herp tRs pfltlpry ljke the cheeserknife produced ip the house. I do not thipk the knife beionged tp my son.: It was two qr three weeks before my son wag killed I gleaned tfye cutlpry. I cannpt gay whether Jje bpcoifle possessed of the knife in the interim. Prisoner: Are you aware whether James Dewar, your son, ever had any quarrel with anyone ? —I don't think he ever had a quarrel with anyone. Are you aware that the deceased, Mrs. Dewar, ever had a quarrel with anyone ? —I am not aware that she ever had a quarrel with any person. ~ You are not aware that he or she had eyer quarpellpfl though jealousy with anybody in rpferenge to paph otjjer? —No, never. _ But still you cannot say positively either the one way or the other I—l never knpw them tp have quarrelled. Richard Swgptpiap Hp war (3, butcher, @f South Dunedin, in whose employ the dev ceased was at the time of his death ; Wilr liam M'Guire,. tram-driver; and Harry Hollander, drayman, who lived behind the deceased's house at the time of the outrage, repeated in substance the evidence they have already given. Hollander, in answer to the prisoner, stated that he first noticed the light in the bedroom ajiout eleyen o'clock on the Saturday' pigjii. James Jlaydop, eyprgssmap, sras the next witness. He gave evidence to the effect that about four o ! clock on Sunday morning he saw a light in deceased's bed-; popfij wjfjf|ow. The deceased was aii obliging, jovial soft of 9 jpß,' j,nd fppfgeff' to liVe on'the besp of termg wjtfy wife..: Witijess £a& livej| near' them during jthirte,en months, and in the whoje of that i fcinie hfrd never hear.d them quarrel. Inspector : say yqu hajrg 1 been on intiijiate terfiis y/ith. tlip deceased 5did you ever hear him allude to any J jealousy on the part of himself towards his wife 1 "Witness—None whatever. I

The Inspector: Did you ever observe anything to indicate that—by a person visiting the house, or anything of the ' kind ? N Witness : No. On the contrary, I thought they were too comfortable —the one with the other. There was never a * time he went out but he always came back and kissed the child. By the prisoner : When you got up and, went into the yard you say the weather was boisterous—there was a good deal of wind?— Yes. You noticed a noise ?—Yes. Was. it .your..impression of . that noise that it was on your own . premises ?—Yes ; I must admit that I was aroused by think3ng" it;iwas my;own:stable-door. When I found, my stable-door , closed, I could not account for the noise I heard, not thinking or knowing that the noise came from next to me, or else I should——\ Knowing what you do now, do you think that the noise at this time might have been caused by the "wind? —The noise, that I make mention of —no. To me it seemed like a heavy fall. It is just possible it was done by the wind, or it might have been done by the deceased failing, for what I know—just as likely the one as the other. Were you on very intimate.terms with the family of, the deceased?— Yes. We were on visiting terms, both my wife and myself. ! " Did you notice anybody round the deceased's premises ?—No. The only thing that made me first make mention of the :deceased's premises was a light being there, whioh is unusual for him. I have been" up at all hours of the night, and never saw a light there before. Did, you notice any indication of anybody moving in or about the premises ? No, I did not. The witness further stated that his suspicions were aroused at seeing a light, knowing that the Dewars did not generally get up before eight or nine o'clock. He lived about 30ft. or ,35ft.' from the deceased's premises. Charles Robb, carpenter, was examined as to discovering a firel at Mr. Dewar's house on the morning in question. Prisoner : Half-past six:, you say, was the time you notioed the fire first? Witness : I would not say. to a minute, mark you. About half-past six. ; By the Prisoner : Did you notice anybody in the house or yard ?—No. On the premises at all ? —No. On the street about there ? —No. James Robb, son of the last witness, and a member of the Biunedin Fire Brigade, was tho next witness. He said that the deceased woman wore a and not a ohemise, as he haid said before .the coroner. He knewthat it was a nightdress, because it had sleeves in it. The prisoner: Did you see anybody about the premises ?—Noj sir. None at all? No. His Worship : You did not see anyone about the premises 3 Witness No one, By the prisoner : I think you say you were the first in the house?—l believe I was after the alarm was given. And, so far as you could see, nothing was disturbed ?—Not that I am aware of. M If there had been anything disturbed in the rooms is it likely you would have noticed it?—l would have noticed it afterwards if there had been. On resuming after the luncheon adjournment, Dr. Niven was examined as to the injuries on the bodies when he was called in on Sunday morning. By the prisoner : What time of day did you arrive at the house ?—A few minutes before seven—about five minutes or so. You found the infant, as you say, suffocated? How long do you suppose it to have been dead ? —J cannot tell. But you ban give an idea with some degree of certainty ?—I should think not nore than an hour. It had no kind of cadaveric rigidity. ■lt might have been two hours ?—I think i not. Could you say for pertain it had not ! been dead three hours previous to your arrival at the house ? You got there at ! seven, and three hours earlier it would have been four o'clock?—Oh, yes, that is a matter of certainty. , What time do you think the wounds ■ were inflicted on the woman ?—Not more than an hour before my arrival. They could not have been clone two hours before ?—I tlynk no,t. ' Sarah housemaid at the Scotia Hotel, deposed to the prisoner going there on Sunday morning, the 14th inst., about twenty-five minutes to seven, and to getting a top-coat and muffler he had left there. He was dressed in the same clothes as when h e first eame to the house on the Thursday previous, and was weaving a moustache. He seemed as if he could not rest, and as though there was someone after him. He said that he 1 wanted to get away by the ten past seven. Witness next saw him in the gaol on last Wednesday morning. His appearance 1 was then altered. He had a different suit of clothes on, and his moustache was off. By the prisoner ; This esoitement that you noticed, do you think it mignt have been caused by drink?—No ; you had no appearance of drink. Do you think the excitement might have been caused by drink ?—I do not 1 think it could ; because you had not the ' slightest appearance of drink. 1 Do you think the excitement might ' have been caused either by srink or by weariness, or by very ill-health ?—No ; I tiling it was oaused by fright. You say I looked pale. When you first saw i'm'e did I ■ look pale ?■ —\ es ; but you ' were paler on Sunday morning than I ever ; saw you before. That is, I was merely a shade paler on the Sunday morning than I ever was before ? —Yes.

Do you recollect whether I had been complaining of any sickness or any indisposition whatever while I was staying there ?—You you ha,d a bad throat. You kept your scarf sos§ tpi your throat, and £o,ld. I complained of "flat haying a«y breakfast I—Yes. You say I complained of haying had no breakfast, and of haying a severe oold. Putting those two circumstances together, and the faot that.for all you knew I might have been tired, or have walked a good distance—putting all these things together do you not;think that they would account for the excitement you say that you noticed You did not look 38 if you were tifed, aftflr a walk. you again would not. all these circumstances account for the excitement?— It would' not account for your excitement being sq much {is it r ' His Worship That is a question for ail exper|i, ; Js.s to' £he tpp.co.at I ware, it open I—lt1 —It was open at the top as you went out of the door. Did you see the suit I wore underneath it ?—I Saw the suit when you came in, and I saw part of the trousers when you. went out. You saw the suit sufficiently well to be certain that it was the suit you had seen me in before ?—Yes, it was the same suit. You could feye •^e»-' mistaken-ajjout-that?—No, ,!Why oould . you .not have, been mistaken ? Because you noticed, it so particularly I—Yes. Y6u.jtoticed.it particularly well ?—Yes. c Do : you'think' you noticed it wpU enough' : tq : ' tp, it well.J—Yes. ;. _ If you noticed it so, and can describe it so well, did you'notice any blood spots on if?—lfb, I did'not notice any blood spots on it. ' . ' : . ■ If ft ha(| been $t all likely that any such indications as thqse had been on th§ was it likely to have' escaped you I—l darg? say they might have escaped me, became the suit is dark, '

Do you mean to say, then, that it is likely, after you excitement it^niPmWng'iieifeecl so very particularly the suit I wore, tnat if there was isuch a very extraordinary appearance asTjlood ststin3 on myclothes, it would have escaped your observation ? Yes. It may have, because I ,had not much time to look. You were only five minutes in the house altogether on Sunday morning. Inspector Mallard : When he left the hotel, after getting a pint of beer, you saw him, and he was then standing at the street corner?— Yes. Ho went out very quickly ; stood at tlie corner ldokiffg'Up the street, and then went up the street. Did he run or Walk fast ?—He walked fast from the corner, but I did: not see him for more than two or three yards. Prisoner : When did you hear of this Cumberland-street tragedy ?—I heard of it at half-past seven o'clock on Sunday morning. How long would that be after you saw me ?—lt would not be an hour. You say you heard of it an hour afterwards. Recollect that you are now on your .oath. Did your mind connect me with it ?—lt did. Then of course you suspected me of it ¥ —I suspected you of it from what I saw of you. Did you mention your suspicions to anybody ? —No. I said to Mr. M'Nicol that you had been in, but I did not mention anything to him about what I have now told you. Did you converse with anybody on the subject?— Not about you.. Did you have any conversation on tho subject with anybody ? I am not mention- | ing myself now.—Certainly. With whom ?—With Mr. M'Nicol and. several other gentlemen who were in thei bar. It was Mr. M'Nicol that first tolcL me about the murder. We all talked about; the murder. Had you never mentioned your suspicions to any of them ?—No. Did you afterwards spontaneously mention your suspicions to the police ?■— I was asked— — . Never mind that. I want to know if you spontaneously mentioned your suspicions to the police?—No; I gave a description of the man who was staying at the hotel.,, Ido not say anything about the murder. "FTia Worship : Who was the man ? Witness : The prisoner, there. The prisoner : When did my name, or my individual description first crop up m connection with the murder—that is, in your presence, of course ? Witness : It would be about nine o'clock on Sunday night. His Worship : Was that the time it was. first mentioned in your hearing. Witness : That was the time I was: asked for a description of the man. By the Prisoner : I ask you again, Tvhera did my name or a description applying particularly to me, first crop up in your presence ?—lt would be in the gaol I should think. Why the Question is so simple that anybody else could understand it. I want yous to tell me when my name, or a description, applying to me was first; brought under your notice in reference to the murder T I don't think that I have heard mention off the murderer in my presence. His Worship : That is not the question he asked you. He wants to know when you first heard his name mentioned its connection with the murder?— When he was arrested at Waikouaiti; not till then. I saw it in the Star. ■ ■ .

The Prisoner: Did the police make an;r inquiries of you concerning either,; tho murder or the man who came to the Scotia Hotel, as you describe, on the Sunday ?—Yes, on the Sunday night. The police made inquiries of you?— Yes; of the man who was staying with us. But X did not mention the murder to them. Did you mention to the police your suspicions ?—No. You suspected a certain man of "whom you had knowledge, and of whom you gave a description to the police when they made inquiries of yo.» about a certain murder. But you aid not mention your suspicions to them? —The police made no inquiries of me about the murder. At all events you did not mentioft your i suspicions of that man to them ?—No j I : gave a description of him. If you suspected any parti&ular person, how was it that you did no.t mention your suspicions to the police?— Because they might not have been right. You do not like to> mention your suspicions without ! having proof before you speak. George Leighton, residing with Iws father, a storekeeper, at the coww of Dundas and Castle-streets, was examined as to selling five tins of aalmon. to, tine prisoner about ten minutes, to. aeveix o» Sunday, the 14th inafc. By the prisoner ;• When this man came to you on S.unday morning did you notice any signs of .excitepient about him ?—> i No 5 I only noticed that he was a little pale. He did not look excited I—No. I did not look particularly at him. Did he look frightened ? There in, much difference between the two* JHq did not. He awfully qw^t. Of course i,f h<a was quiet he waa j not excited % —spolse about aa little as I he coul;d help, 1 \'Ou notioed liim sufficiently well to | notice that he was very quiet f—Ye3. Now, you know it is much easier to notice a man excited or frightened than to notice that he was quiet I—He se.ew®.4 to be quiet rather than excUedv « r . By Inspector .thing like you said just now i he seemed to say as little as he could ? —I 1 opened the door, and, without speaking, the man walked in. _ ' Can you describe the action of the n»i\X\ when he asked to be supplied witU salmon 1 Did he go up to , a bold way, or dis gawp, jn wy other- | way \ —l did not ifluph notice Qjf h,in\. j He as | At th\s sta,gp of the proceedings (4 fhin.) ! the further hearing of thQ eUavge was ad' i journed until JQ a,m. on Wednesday next, On the charge of presenting a loaded revolver at Constable Townsend prisoner was further remanded till the 29th inst.

.... Yesterday a scarf Butler were foups. r |\hp trousers nave not turned up, li is, we believe, a fact, that it has transpired that on Tuesday and Wednesday prior to the murder, that Butler iadged at Ravensbourne in the same house as the local policeman, and that he went under the of Rob^.t