THE RAMARAMA TRAGEDY.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXVIII, Issue 34, 8 October 1915, Page 2

THE RAMARAMA TRAGEDY.

accused committed for trial i I i. i.ifirtW /iBHOOI* * !«>;< Auckland, October t. I'iit' inquest mi rims. Ferry, inurcloi ji'd ai Uanmr.ima, was continued to* . r day, n li(or.a.;> Me!>ov,i'll. laborer, coiituui- L ad Ids evidence. *| ’I hp -.vti ness ill I Ins stage attempted u) evade answering ((motions, and was itoniiv rebuked by the Coroner. | William Sutton, farmer. said Hm previous witness wjis in Ids employ on September 21th. and lor some necks ■previously. On the night ol vep I . ear her 24:, they slept ill the same room, retiring about It) p.m. ami iismg ahoiu six. Witness knew Alts Ferry hy sight, and twice within the p.i.-t lewweeks he had seen her on the I arm with McDowell. That wa s in tile daytime. Chief-Detective McMahon gave details of his investigations, and prod Head pieces of the skull which had been found in the hod. '1 he blouse in which Mrs Perry slept was marked with blood stains, hut she aeeonufed for that hy staling that when she hoard the explosion alto put her arm ovei her husband’s lace, and asked. “What’s the matter. Dad?” Witness produced a statement wldeh f lie widow had signed, after it ""'s read over to her; regarding a suggestion that the gun had been fired through the win- I dow. Witness would say that it was j impossible. He had made a test hy taking the positions occupied hy de- - ceased, while Detective-Sergeant .Hollis aimed an unloaded gnu, M hen arrested on a charge ol murder, Mrs Ferry replied that she did not do it. The accused gave her statement ((iiite freely, and in a connected manner, Detective-Sergeant Hollis slated that Mrs Ferry when asked what pan of the bed she slept in. replied mi the centre, alongside her husband, with her hahy towards him, and her child * Iving on her left arm. Witness remarked that if she had been in bed at the time her clothing would have been much more marked. .Mrs Perry did not reply, when her attention was directed to some brain matter on the 4 pillow where she was supposed to have been lying. There was also a quantity ol matter on the portion of the bed which the woman said she had I occupied. In the course of his investigations witness trained a gun from all the different angles permitted hy the window-sill, hut from none could such injuries as those sustained hy deceas- I ed have been indicted. It was impossible to got a clear aim at the left centre of the head where the charge - entered the deceased. Witness searched inside the house for cartridges, but found none. The Coroner returned the following verdict“J liiul that John Thomas Perry was murdered hy being shot through the head, while lying in hod in his house at Hamarama. The evidence shows that the muzzle of the gnu from which the shot was fired was held either against, or within two foot of deceased’s forehead. The nature of the wound and the angle at which the shot was evidently bred render it most unlikely that the per- . son who discharged the gun was at the time outside the room. The evidence shows that deceased’s wife had for some time been improperly intimate with the witness, McDowell, and had been, partly on that account, on had terms with her husband, and had also spoken of leaving him. There is no suggestion that deceased had any enemies. Mrs Perry was in the bedroom with deceased at the time the shot was bred, and if would have been difficult for anyone to have left the room, which was filled with moonlight, after the shot had been fired without having been seen or heard. The gun, oi which one barrel had been recently discharged, was found in the house. The evidence shows that so far as Mis Perry is concerned, a combination of motive, opportunity, and means, and all absence of any evidence tending to implicate anybody else, hut in lannesß to her, in view of the fact that she now stands charged with murder, and in view ol the tact that the cr idence is circumstantial and inlerenl.ial, ] do not propose to find definitely against her. or to analyse the evidence . in detail. It is sufficient to justify her being committed for trial, and it is: in the interests of justice that I should not make a definite finding which might affect the minds of the jury who will try her.” Accused was subsequently committed for trial.