RAMA RAMA TRAGEDY.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 4, Issue 93, 8 October 1915, Page 1

RAMA RAMA TRAGEDY.

Inquest Resumed

The adjourned inquest into the circumstances surrounding the death of Thomas William Perry, who was found shot at Rama Rama on September 25th, was resumed at the Coroner's Court, Auckland, on Wednesday, before Mr F. V. Frazer, S.M. Mr Selwyn Mays appealed for the Crown, and the widowe who had been arrested on a charge of alleged murder was represented by Mr E. J. Prendergast.

A feature of the hearing was the callousness displayed by the accused woman, who was present in Court. Even when her cihldren were weeping in the witness box shs could be noticed smiling at various persons in the Court. THE EVIDENCE. Horatio Alfred Warner, a licensed surveyor, was the first witness, and he stated that on the 29th September he proceeded to Rama Rama and examined the principle features in connection with the location of the body' and the interior of the deceased's house. From this inspection he produced a plan, submitted. He found that most of the blood on the mattress was on a corner furthest away from the window and not where the deceased had been lying.

Charles Taylor, licensee of the Drury Hotel, deposed that he knew the deceased. In the evening prior to the occurrence Perry had arrived by the 7.40 p.m. train with his little girl, and had partaken of a little refreshment (one beer). When he left he was in his usual state of health, being perfectly sober.

Lily Perry, of Runciman, stated that the was not in any way related to the deceased. Mrs Perry, the accused, had visited her parents' home on the afternoon preceding the tragedy, and Mrs Perry, her two sons and two daughters had partaken of dinner and afternoon tea. She had overheard a conversation between Mrs Perry and her mother, during which she heard the former say that she would not be without her husband for anything, as she could not control her boys. Tom Perry, she believed, was present, and he had stated that he would not care if his father died the next day. When asked why, he had stated that he was badly used by his father. Before Mrs Perry left she had been invited to visit the house again on the following Sunday. Henry R. Jennings, farmer, of Rama Rama, identified a doublebarrelled gun, produced. Since the Perry's house had been burnt down he had lent his gun to Mr Perry. On a Monday night about a fortnight before the tragedy Mrs Perry had called on him to borrow the gun, stating that Tom wanted the loan of it till the following day. He assumed that she meant her husband when she said Tom. He put the gun together and handed it to her, and did not see it since until it was produced in Court that day. She had never borrowed the gun before, but on one occasion the children had come for it, and deceased frequently. When the latter borrowed the gun he usually returned it the next day, but on one occasion it had to be sent for after it had been away for some weeks. He had never given Mrs Perry any cartridges, and did not know whether deceased used the ordinary or smokeless variety. Thomas Perry, the eldest son of the accused, aged 14 years, stated that he and his brother and sister assisted their father to milk on the Friday morning. A litttle after six his father and sister Amelia left the house to go to Auckland. During the morning he drove a cart containing his mother, sister Mary, Leonard and the baby to Runciman station to enquire as to whether some oats had arrived. On the way they called at Andrew Perry's residence. Witness corroborated the previous witness's evidence regarding the mother's conversation at Perry's, but did not remember saying anything himself. His father and sister had not returned home at 10.30 that night, and his mother and sister Mary went along the road to meet them, the party arrived at the house just before eleven o'clock. The whole family assembled in the kitchen and whilst his father and sister had tea, the children tried on the new boots which his father had brought from town. The girls slept in a bedroom which opened off the kitchen. After the goods had been put away his father proceeded to the spare room on the opposite side of the house to the bedroom to which his mother had retired. Witness went in to obtain his lamp which she had taken. His mother was then in bed on the side near the cot with the baby lying by her left side and with Leonard lying in the cot. He then retired to the next room, his bed being near the wall of his mother s room. His father soon after visited his (the boys') room and left the door open about six inches upon retiring. About half-past two or three o'clock the witness was awakened by a noise like the report of a gun, but which impressed him as being like a board falling on the bed. He found nothing wrong with the bed but smelt powder from his father's and mother's bedroom. The lining boards between the two rooms did not fit well and he looked through one of the cracks. The night was moonlight but he did not notice whether the window was open. He also looked through a lower crack and saw what he took to be the bed and his mother. His mother appeared to be leaning on the bed over towards his father. He did not hear any further sound from

the room. When he heard his father groaning he called out and asked what was wrong, but his mother did not reply. She was not making any sound.

Questioned by the Coroner: His mother appeared to him to be getting up from the bed. He remained quiet where he was for about two minutes not hearing any noise meanwhile, but later went to the door of his mother's bedroom which was about half way open. He struck a match and saw his mother lying on the bed on her elbow, which wass partly covered with clothes. He did not notice how she was dressed. He lighted a lamp at his mother's bidding, the latter putting the chimney on. He then saw his father and touched his hand. Witness here burst into tears when asked what his mother had said. She did not say anything, witness continued, and he then noticed that the wind was blowing through an aperture in the window frame. He had wanted to raise it still further, but his mother had told him to leave it alone until the police came. The baby was still in the same place in the bed as when he had noticed it before. His mother subsequently asked him to go to Mr Guinevan's (a neighbour's) house. When he went into his mother's room first the back door was closed, but after he had dresssd and went into the kitchen he noticed that the door was open. His mother accompanied him to the neighbour's, and she told him to go to the house and tell Mr Guinevan to come up as somebody had shot his father. Messrs Guinevan and Cox subsequently' arrived at the house During the journey back his mother was crying,. She had not said anything to account for how his father had been shot, or as to why it was done. His father and mother sometimes quarrelled, but he had heard no quarrel that week.

Questioned by Mr Prendergast: He remembered his father being taken to the hospital on April 16th, after eating canned peaches. His brother Fred on the particular occasion had refused to eat his share, which was devoured by his father. His mother had put the empty tin into the fire, but he could not say it she usually did this as it was not often that the family had tinned friut. He had seen his mother put tins into the fire previously, but there were also a number about the yard. His father was very bad and Fred had stated that the peaches tasted bitter.

Re-examined by Mr Mays: Witness hesitated as to whether anyone had suggested that some person had a set on his father.

Interrogated by the Magistrate, he still did not answer, although Mr Mays stated that he had told the detectives something to that effect. Ultimately witness said his mother had stated that it might have been done by someone who had quarrelled with his father. Mary Perry, aged thirteen, fol lowed her brother in the box, and corroborated part of his evidence. She deposed that she was awakened by her brother Tom, who told her that someone had shot their father. She got up from bed and ran into the bedroom where she saw her father with the top of his head blown off. Her mother was in the passage at the time dressed, and she asked witness "to come and see father." Her mother made a bottle of food for the baby which she gave to witness, and her mother then went with Tom for the neighbours. She had not heard anyone moving about and did not even hear the report of the gun. William Guinevan gave evidence of having been called by Tom Perry and the mother, who said who said, "Come quick, come quick; Tom's shot." I am not sure whether she said he is shot or dead, continued witness. He proceeded to obtain assistance, and he and Mr Cox visited Perry's house. Mrs Perry and some of the children were wailing in the paddock near the house. It was a bright moonlight night, and on entering the house by the back door witness and his companion walked to the room, and saw the deceased laying on his right side on the side of the bed nearest the window. Mrs Perry entered the room with them, The top of the head was blown away, and both he and Cox came to the conclusion that life was extinct. "I said the man is shot," and Mrs Perry said, "Yes; he was shot through ths window." When he first went in Mrs Perry said, "There he is; make the best you can of it,' or "do the best you can with it." Witness was not sure what statement was correct. He told Mrs Perry that he could not see any firearms, and she said "There's only a gun in the dairy, and that hasn't been used for a long time." She also either said there were two cartridges left or that the last two had been used on the Thursday. Witness did not think the shot which killed the deceased had been fired through the window. He had observed and was of the opinion that the level of the aperture was too low to enable a shot from outside inflicting the wound. He had had experience in the use of firearms. He told Mrs Perry and Mr Cux that he had sent for a constable, and she said "Oh! is a constable coming too?" Constable Waugh and Dr Brookfield arrived at about 1.15 a.m. When Mrs Perry arrived at his house first she told him that all the place was covered with smoke and the boy sang out "What's the matter father." She sang out "Father is shot," and the boy then came in and struck a light. He was at the house on the 16th April last when he witnessed a will made by the deceased. The circumstances sur-

rounding the making of the will were that Perry was supposed to have partaken of tinned fruit which had had a poisonous effect. When he was called Perry was lying on the floor and asked to have his will made. The deceased said he wanted the property divided amongst the four boys, but did not include the youngest. Mrs Perry, who was present, then asked what Leonard had done that he was not included Perry then said, "Oh! all light; put him in." When asked about the girls he said, "No; only the boys." The will was ultimately signed by the deceased making his mark, and it left a life interest in the property to his wife, it afterwards to be divided amongst the five boys. When Perry came out of hospital he was invited to make any changes he liked, but the will was never revoked and stands now, being under the control of the Public Trustee.

In answer to Mr Prendergast; He believed that the shot was fired from inside the room, as otherwise the shot and blood would have scattered more than it did. Mrs Perry seemed much distressed when she went to his house and also in the room. Even when it was at first proposed to leave her out of the will, Mrs Perry did not complain, except for the youngest bay. To Mr Mays: When he saw Perry on the 16th of April he was in a very bad condition and was in great pain. Neither Detective Hollis nor anyone else had helped to formulate the opinion he had offered that the deceased was shot from inside the room. He had come to that conclusion from what he saw, but had mentioned it to Detective Hollis.

George Frederick Cox, Presbyterian Home Missioner, corroborated a certain amount of the previous witness's evidence as to going to the house and inspecting the body. In reply to Mr Guinevan, Mrs Perry had stated that "Somebody had shot him through the window," and then again, "Oh! how can anybody have been so cruel. "In respect to a question regarding firearms, Mrs Perry stated that there was a gun in the dairy. His first impression was that the shot was fired through the window, but he had really not considered that particular matter since then. The night was so bright by moonlight that it would have been quite easy to see anyone entering or leaving the house, and before the tragedy the moonbeams would possibly fall on the features of the sleeping man. Possibly also a person would not see the wife on account of Perry being nearest to the window and being a big man. He did not pass anyone while on his way to the house.

Dr A. W. P. BrookfieId deposed to having arrived at the house in company with Constable Waugh. They proceeded to the front bedroom and found the body lying on its right side on the side of the bed nearest the window. Describing the wound the witness said the top part of the head was shot away from slightly to the left of the nose, the lower edge being about one and a-half inches above the eyebrows. The wound was serrated and was semi-circular. From the appearance of the wound the shot had spread slightly, the outer ring being loose. About half the shot had taken effect and the diameter of the wound was about an inch. It extended back practically to the vertex of the skulll at a slant of from left to right of the man's head. A portion of the wad of the cartridge was found in the deceased's brain.

At this stage two of the boards of the wall from directly behind the deceased's bed were produced lor further inspection. Questioned as to what distance he thought the shot had been fired, the doctor, after examining the gun produced, said, "Within inches of the forehead." He had made a rough estimate, not too close' and was of the opinion that the shot which killed the deceased could not have been fired from outside. During part of the time he was making the examination Mrs Perry was quiet, but did not seem to worry much, and simply asked if life was extinct.

Regarding the alleged poisoning incident on April 16th the witness stated that he found Mr Perry to be suffering from strychnine poisoning—an overdose.

At this stage Mr Prendergast raised a point in connection with the evidence with regards to the poisoning incident, asking why the matter was being gone into. Mr Mays said that Mr Prendergast had first introduced the evidence.

Mr Prendergast: I did so because an unfair statement has appeared in a newspaper which reflects upon the accused.

Mr Mays: I think in fairness to the accused that the matter, which is touched upon in ths informations, had better be cleared.— Strychnine had been found in the house, and the symptoms of this poison were noticeable. In answer to the Coroner, Dr Brookfield stated that ptomaine poisoning would not produce the same symptoms. Continuing, witness said Mr Perry accounted for her husband's illness by the fact that he had eaten tinned fruit, but none of the other members of the family suffered. Dr Edwin H. B. Milsom, Auckland, also gave evidence concerning an examination of the body made by him. He also thought the gun was held very close indeed to the head, and taking everything into consideration, practically against the skull. He had noticed that there were two stains, like blood, on the right barrel of the gun, and also powder stains on the ekull.

The wound could have been selfinflicted, but was an unusual one. He considered that the decessed s head was partially raised when he was shot, and the shot was fired on a parallel with the floor. He did not think the distance at which the shot was fired was as far as two feet. BLOODSTAINS. Alfred James Parker, Government Analyst, gave evidence of finding bloodstains on the right barrel of the gun, about one and a-half inches from the muzzle. There was also one stain on the left barrel two and a-half inches from the top. The blood might have been that of a human being or an animal or bird, The stains were too small to be able to tell for certain, but one was glossy and recent. He had also examined the stomach of the deceased, but found no trace of poisoning. At this juncture the Court adjourned until 10 a.m. yesterday. [Continued on Page 2.]