WEDDING-DAY MURDER

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 309, 21 March 1928, Page 1

WEDDING-DAY MURDER

Norgrove in the Dock 'EVIDENCE GF TANGLED RELATIONSHIPS ON March 7, when Ernestina Mary Norgrove, a widow, aged 38, was preparing to go to the wedding of her eighteen-year-old daughter, she was battered to death with a flat-iron in her home at Cardwell Street, New Lynn. At the Police Court to-day her brother-in-law, Allan George Norgrove, aged 27, was charged with murder. Evidence was given of Norgrove’s intimate relations with his sister-in-law, and stories were told of brutal assaults he had made on the woman on other occasions. There was a large crowd in court, including many women.

'T'HE hearing of evidence on the murder charge was taken in conjunction with the inquest. Mr. V. R. Meredith, Crown solicitor, appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Alan Moody appeared for accused. Norgrove stepped into the dock dressed in a navy blue suit and jazz pull-over. He looked composed. When the evidence began, he was allowed to sit down. He was given water on occasions. CASE OUTLINED In his opening address, Mr. Meredith outlined the evidence which would be called for the prosecution. In it, Norgrove's relationship with his sister-in-law was described, and details of previous altercations were given. Mr. Meredith said that Mrs. Norgrove's husband had been dead for three years and she lived at New' Lynn in a four-roomed house, with her daughter Mavis and her son David. Three other children were in the Manurewa Home. Mrs. Norgrove and her daughter slept in a front bedroom, and the boy slept in a back room. Evidence was to the effect that there had been illicit relations between Norgrove and Mrs. Norgrove, and that, at the week-ends, when accused came to the house, he and his sister-in-law slept in the back room. "It will appear,” said Mr. Meredith, “that Norgrove had the children terrorised, and on occasions assaulted Mrs. Norgrove. Continuing,, he said that the fatal quarrel took place on the day on which Mavis was to marry a man named Firth, whom Norgrove did not like. On a previous occasion, accused had, during a quarrel, struck Mrs. Norgrove twice on the javv. and smashed her teeth. On another occasion, the boy David had rushed to a neighbour’s house during a quarrel-, and the neighbour had heard Norgrove say: “I’ll get her yet.” There had been another altercation when Norgrove asked where Mavis and Firth were going to live after their marriage. Mrs. Norgrove said they were going to live with her, but Norgrdve objected. When Mrs. Norgrove persisted, accused took out a knife and said: “I’ll run you through.” Finally, in deference to Norgrove’s

wishes, it was decided that Mavis and her husband should iiye elsewhere. On the morning of the wedding, Mrs. Norgrove went to a neighbour’s house to do some washing. Norgrove came in and asked Mavis if there was going to be a “show” that night. When she said thre would be a celebration, Norgrove replied: “I’ll teach your mother to deceive me.” Later, Mrs. Norgrove returned dressed for the wedding.* Norgrove was in the house, and a neighbour saw Mrs. Norgrove attempting to climb through a window. She was weeping and saying “I will.” The sound of shifting furniture was heard, and then several dull thuds, followed by a silence. Norgrove was then seen to leave the house. “MUST HAVE BEEN MAD” STATEMENT BY NORGROVE DISCLOSURES TO POLICE The prosecutor then read the following statement which accused had made after his arrest: I am a single man, 27 years of age, and I reside with my parents at No. 13 Sussex Street, Grey Lynn. I have been spending week-ends with my sister-in-law, Mrs. Ernestina May Norgrove, at Cardwell Street, New Lynn, every weekend- I have been out. to New Lynn since March 3, 1928. About 10.45 a.m. on March 7, I got a bus at Surrey Crescent, Grey went to my sister-in-law’s house. I arrived at the house shortly after 11 a.m. I had only been at the house a short while when Mrs. Norgrove’s daughter, - Mavis, and her son. David, aged 18 and 12 years respectively, went out. leaving me in the house alone. When I got to the house Mrs. Norgrove was out. She came back to the house shortly after Mavis and David went out.

Mrs. Norgrove and I then had some words. We were then in the kitchen, and one word brought on another. Mrs. Norgrove then went into her bedroom, which is on the right-hand side of the front side of the house. I followed Mrs. Norgrqve into her bedroom and we kept on arguing there. I left the bedroom and went out into the bathroom, and I picked up a flat-iron that was in the bathroom. I then went back into the bedroom Where Mrs. Norgrove was. I then had the flatiron in my right hand. We had some more words and I struck Mrs. Norgrove on the head with the iron. When I struck her she fell on the floor of the bedroom and I struck her several times while she was on the floor. I do not know how many times I struck her, as I must have been mad. After I had struck Mrs. Norgrove down I left the house, locked it up, and took the back door key on going out. I have spent most of my week-ends with Mrs. Norgrove at her New Lynn house for about 12 months. Mrs. Norgrove is a widow, her husband having died about three years ago at New Lynn. After I did what I had done I left the house and I got a bus and came into Surrey Crescent. I left the bus there and came over to the Ponsonby Police Station and reported the matter to Constable Leslie, whom I know. I only went to see Mrs. Norgrove on that day to see if she was going to the wedding of her daughter, Mavis, who was going to be married that day at the Registry ] Office, High Street. Mrs. Norgrove told me the wedding was going to be held in a hall at New Lynn. I objected to Mrs. Norgrove going to the wedding party, owing to the fact that I was not friendly with the bridegroom, George Firth. She said she would go to the wedding party and I said she : was not going. When she went into, the bedroom she went in to put her hat on, then the argument started and caused me to do what I did. R. W. Riddell, draughtsman, employed by the Public Works Department, said he prepared a plan of the house and took measurements of the section the day following the tragedy. There were marks on the plan to represent the splashes of blood on the walls of the bedroom. At this stage Mr. Moody asked if accused could be given a seat, as the proceedings would last some time. The request was granted. Accused’s demeanour was quite calm. EVIDENCE OF DOCTORS Injuries to the dead woman, who was found lying in a corner of the room, alongside the dressing-table, were described by Dr. B. C. A. Leeper. She was lying on her back, in a pool of blood, with her hat beside her. Her feet were toward the door. The bed had been made, but was not disarranged, and there were no signs of a struggle, though there was blood on the opposite wall, and on the curtains. The top denture of a set of false teeth was lying about a foot beyond the head. Though the body was warm when he saw it, the woman appeared to have been dead a couple of hours. There was a large bruise, and a cut an inch long, on the right hand; another wound on the face; the right upper jaw and the bridge of the nose were broken, the bones of the nose being exposed. At the back of the right ear was a large wound thre.e inches long and three inches wide. This had penetrated the skull and the brain. Witness and Dr. Murray conducted a post-mortem the following day. * It disclosed the injuries already indicated, and haeinr-”Liage and lacera- ! tion of the brain. Death was caused by laceration of » brain. Dr. D. N. W. Murray gave corroborative evidence. The head injuries indicated that several blows had been ; struck upon it. There were riyi's of j four distinct blows. On the production of a flat iron.

I Dr. Murray said the injuries were consistent with the injuries that could be j inflicted by any similar iron. A woman's dress, silk handkerchief, i collar, shirt, tie, and a flat iron ] were produced and sworn to by Dr. Bevan-Brown, of the pathological department, Auckland Public Hospital, who said he had performed the usual tests, proving that the stains thereon were of human blood. Edward Buchanan, monumental mason, of Middleton Road, Remuera, gave evidence of identification. Deceased was his sister-in-law. Francis May Pirret, residing at 2

Cardwell Street, New Lynn, told how Mrs. Norgrove pressed the cinnamoncoloured wedding frock, now a bloodstained exhibit in the 'court, at her home the night before the wedding. Mrs. Norgrove was at the house (the home of witness) doing the washing on the morning of the tragedy. She was cheerful and In good spirits. SIX MUFFLED THUDS Miss Olive White, who lives next door to the house lately occupied' by Mrs. Norgrove, said that on the morning of the tragedy she was sewing in a room opposite Mrs. Norgrove’s kitchen. She saw Mrs. Norgrove come up the path wearing a cinnamon-coloured dress. She was carrying a pink hat in her hands. After she went inside, witness heard words in the house. The window opened in a hurry, and witness saw Mrs. Norgrove crying. It looked as if she were going to jump outside. Mrs. Norgrove, in looking out, saw w-itness, hesitated, and let go the window ledge. Witness heard Mrs. Norgrove say: “I will,” twice. Then she heard accused reply, "I’m going to.” The next thing heard was a noise as if a chair had been pushed. This was followed by six muffled thuds. About quarter of an hour after Norgrove came outside, and walked away from the house with his hands in his pockets. Francis William George Postlewaight, of Binstead Road, New r Lynn, said that he knew Mrs. Norgrove and her late husband. He also knew accused.

On one occasion the boy David came to bis house, and witness went across to Norgrove’S. He saw Mavis leaning out of a window, and he heard sounds as if somebody was getting a hiding. Witness looked through a window, and saw Mrs. Norgrove getting off the floor, and he saw accused trying to smash in the £oor of the room where Mavis was. Norgrove then came out, after the boy, threatening to kill him. Witness asked Norgrove what the

trouble was, and tried to reason with him. DAUGHTER’S STORY Mavis Martha Firth, daughter of Mrs. Norgrove, a slight little figure dressed in black, gave evidence unfalteringly until the Iron which caused her mother’s death was placed in front of her. She then wept. She r-id that on the morning of M ,ch 7 she had got up early to prepare for the . wedding. About ten o’clock she went over to Plrret’s to see .er mother. Mrs. Norgrove came back with her to get some clothes, as she intended to dress for the wedding at Pirret’s. While witness and her brother were having lunch, Norgrove came in. He

asked lier where she was going to j live, and witness told him. He then asked if she was going to have a “turn out” after the wedding, and she replied that a surprise party had been arranged. He then asked if Mrs. Norgrove was going, and when witness said that she was, Norgrove replied that she \ was not. He added that he would teach her to deceive him. Witness said then that her mother would have to come to the wedding, j as witness was under age. Norgrove then told her to “get to *—— out of it.” Witness then told the story of Norgrove’s visits to the house. She said that he uame to the house to sleep every week-end, and sometimes I he stayed on week nights. When he stayed at the house, he occupied the same room as witness's ■ mother. STRIFE OVER ENGAGEMENT Norgrove objected to her engagement to Firth, and had told Firth to keep away from the house, and he had asked her mother to tell him to keep away too. It was first proposed that witness and her husband should live with Mrs. Norgrove, but Norgrove objected, and her mother said that if rows were going to be caused, it would be better for them to live elsewhere. On February 26 there was a row between her mother and accused because a verse had been put in the paper in memory of witness’s father. There were frequent quarrels, and there was one stormy scene when the question of witness’s future residence was discussed. Mrs. Norgrove said that she paid the rent, and the witness and her husband could stay in the house until they had somewhere else to go. , Norgrove replied: I’ll put this knife through you. They’ll only come over my dead body. Later, Norgrove told Mrs. Norgrove that she would never live to see witness married. The day Postlewaight was called, Norgrove knocked her mother down, pulled her up, then knocked her down again. ACCUSED INTERJECTS “You're telling lies after lies, Mavis,” called accused from the dock. “It’s all lies,” he added. One night, when Firth called at the house, there was a fight between him and Norgrove on the front lawn. After the fight Norgrove told witness that if she preferred Firth to home she could clear out. Witness then gave evidence as to the number of irons in the house. When she was shown the one that had killed her mother she broke down. The luncheon adjournment was then taken.