NEW LYNN MURDER TRIAL

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 354, 15 May 1928, Page 1

NEW LYNN MURDER TRIAL

NORGROVE IN THE DOCK CROWN CALLS EVIDENCE IN REBUTTAL r[E trial of Allan George Norgrove, charged with the murder of his sister-in-law, Ernistina Mary Norgrove, was continued this morning at the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice MacGregor. The morning was occupied in hearing expert medical evidence upon the question of the prisoner’s mental condition. Expert evidence was called in rebuttal by the Crown. Mr. V. R. Meredith is appearing for the Crown and Mr. Allan Moody, with him Mr. M. R. Reed, for accused. When he entered the dock this morning Norgrove showed signs of the ordeal he was undergoing. He was pale and at times agitated. Occasionally he interjected during the cross-examination of witnesses and had to be restrained by the warder in attendance.

In outlining the defence, yesterday afternoon, Mr. Moody said he desired to approach the case apart from the sordid details upon which it had been necessary for the Crown to dwell. The Crown Prosecutor had suggested that every person was held to be sane until proved insane. The defence would be that at the time the crime was committed the prisoner was insane. Counsel stated that the prisoner was a single young man living with his parents. From infancy he was an abnormal child and evidence to that effect would be given by a brother and a school teacher who taught him. It would be shown that he had been melancholy, violent to an extreme degree, and at times, given to “fighting like a tiger.” The teachers could do nothing with him and at an early age he had to be taken away from school. Dr. Beattie, who for many years had been in charge of the Auckland Mental Hospital, had had prisoner under observation and would give evidence in regard to his present condition. The evidence for the prosecution proved that he was subject to fits of ungovernable temper, and evidence would also show that there was insanity in his family.

David Norgrove, storeman, brother of accused, stated in his examination, that his brother was uncontrollable when he lost his temper. Witness recounted incidents of his school-days when the accused would fight and scratch when being taken to school. Billiard room incident Mr. Meredith cross-examined witness at some length. He did not fight every morning?— Yes. Do you say that this boy fought and kicked every morning?—Yes, and I can prove it. How long did this go on?—For some time. In the three years he went through the performance how many hidings did he get?—A good few. And you say that every time he got out of school he disappeared?—Yes. You left school before him?—No. My brother left and was taught privately. You mean a private school?—Yes. Did you have to carry him there too? -No. Then you had no trouble with him there?—A little. How long. was he there? —I could not say. It may have been ten years for all I know. You have been giving definite evidence. Now how long was it? —I don’t know. Then you can’t say whether he was giving trouble?—He gave trouble all the time he was at school. Who put him to work 7 —He went on his own. Then he did not kick and fight about it. When did he drop it?—He has not dropped it yet.. Witness said his brother was at work about 18 months when he left with a strained heart. He was off for about three years. He then went to an iron factory and strained his heart again. There was no difficulty in his keeping his psition before he suffered the strained heart. In the last seven or years bis brother had not been able to obtain any light work. He was told he would never have to work Dr. Usher told him that. Mr. Meredith: Do you mean to say P r - Usher said that?—Well, he said oe could not do hard work. He said nothing about light work. witness said he had made two attempts to get his brother work. . ‘"f- Meredith: The night of the rouble in the billiard saloon where did you see him?—At the police station, ttvi ** Ppt if to you that he was fined ana convicted for being drunk and paging property?—He did not apvr <irunk when I saw him. he charged with drunkenness?

N? 0 Was in the babit of drinking?— I 3? e f. ccus ed read a good deal?—Yes, read books the average person would cJS re you in *be court when the ac- * "as charged after the billiard r °om incident?—Yes. char^ n - yo 1? must have known he was drunkenness? —He ma Y nG^ e v eXam * ne< *’ w i tn ess said he was schon? ry old when his brother was at a t happe 6 not know everything accused breaks down Martha Norgrove, ne<s«* >T . e accused, entered the witttised °* Altering step. The ac- * w bo had retained a calm de-

meanour throughout now dropped his head beneath the rail of the dock. The mother said that he went to a school in Church Street. Ponsonby. When a boy her son suffered a nervous breakdown and could not go to school. He was about 11 years of age when he left school. He was then in Standard 11. Witness had a great deal of trouble in getting him to school. He was very nervous and would run away. He had a violent temper, and woud cry and scream. After these spasms he would be terribly sorry. He seemed all right with other boys. At the age of 16 he went to work. Witness gave similar evidence as the previous witness as to the accused’s heart.

The accused used to worry a great deal, and could not sleep at night. Witness admitted that she had a niece in an asylum. Cross-examined, witness said that of the two children in the asylum one was her brother’s and the other her sister’s. At this stage the accused rose to his feet and shouted: You leave my mother alone! He was quickly caught back to his seat, where he hung his head, but evinced signs of restlessness when Mr. Meredith continued his cross-examina-tion and finally broke into audible sobbing. George Frederick Guineberg, tramway employee, said he had known the accused for 14 or 15 months. He was often depressed, and seemed far away when he was spoken to. KICKED SCHOOLMASTER Randolph Riddling, manual instructor at the Taranaki Agricultural School, and previously of Auckland, said he knew the accused very well. He first came in contact with him when he was a teacher at the Ponsonby School. At that time the accused was only a child. His first introduction was on the road when he was going to school. Norgrove was with his mother, who was obviously worn out. Witness took charge of the boy, who immediately commenced to fight, kick and scratch, and gave him a most difficult time. Eventually witness got him into the class-room and handed him over to his teacher. After this witness had the same trouble. On several occasions witness had seen Norgrove fight with his brothers and sister. He would, at these times, use anything that came to his hand as a weapon. At that period witness was of the opinion that the accused was quite definitely unbalanced. To Mr. Meredith: I left the school in 1908. I did not return to Auckland as a teacher after that date. MENTAL INSTABILITY Dr. R. M. Beattie, late superintendent of the Avondale Mental Asylum, and now practising in Auckland, said he had given evidence in a considerable number of murder cases in the Dominion. On March 29 h e examined Norgrove. He had had him under observation on six occasions. The first time the accused seemed run down physically, and mentally depressed. He was emotional and seemed to have unfounded suspicions of different persons. As a result of his examinations he had found that he was suffering from congenital mental instability. That diagnosis depended largely on the accused’s own statements to witness. Subsequently he had no doubt at all that the accused was suffering from mental instability. Witness had also examined the brother and two sisters of the accused. The mother had a nephew and a niece in a mental hospital. His Honour: The mother told you that? You did not investigate the truth yourself?—No. The mother told me. Witness continued by saying that he had found a brother who was unquestionably an epileptic. The mother herself was highly strung. Speaking of the state of mind of the accused at th© time of the tragedy, he concluded that it was only after slight provocation he did not comprehend what he was doing. He was satisfied that accused’s act was due to the disease which prevented him from having sufficient control over himself. From previous experience he considered that during the last two or three years, or perhaps more, accused had been a dementia precos case. At this stage the hearing was adjourned. DEFENCE CONTINUED MENTAL AUTHORITIES’ EVIDENCE The Court room was crowded when the hearing reopened this morning, women being again prominent. The cross-examination of Dr. Beattie was commenced. , ~ To Air. Meredith: I examined the brother of the accused on two occasions. That was the brother I was satisfied was an epileptic. Mr. Meredith: It is net unusual for children to struggle and kick when they are asked to do things they d not want to do? —No. But it does not follow that a child who displays temper is abnormal ? The average child will cease to do this under training, but it is often an indication of abnormality. A dhild that shows these signs of temper at an early age does not continue to show abnormality?—No-

You know the story of this case, and you know that there had been quarrels between Norgrove and his family? —Yes. Do you suggest that when a man acts as Norgrove did he was not actuated by anger?—That may not have been the cause of it. You know the objection to the marriage?— Norgrove (from the box): “There was no objection.” Witness said that as far as he could see, the only objection was to the parties living in the house. Mr. Meredith: I will quote Constable Holt, who says that the accused objected to the marriage. The accused: That’s a lie. Mr. Meredith: When Mavis testifies that Norgrove asked if her mother was going to the wedding, and if she did he would teach her to deceive him, would tnat not show a spirit of resentment ?—Yes. His Honour: It is a pity you did not hear all the evidence, otherwise you would have been acquainted with what has been said. Dr. Beattie said he thought he had heard all the essential points. Mr. Meredith: When a woman is forced to try and get out of a window as Mrs. Norgrove was, she was in danger?—Norgrove is a small man and she could have defended herself. She may have been frightened. “I put it to you that this anger and resentment of Norgrove was much in evidence at this time?” —“Yes.” “In the statement to the police, Norgrove stated that after the incident witnessed by Miss White, he followed Mrs. Norgrove into the bedroom and continued the quarrel. He then went to the bathroom and got a flat iron,

and went back to the bedroom?—l don’t know whether there were further words then.” “So we have it from .accused that there were more words, and also that from the time of his entry into the house he was Quarrelling?”—“Yes, I suppose so.” “Do you suggest that when Norgrove picked up the flat iron he did not know what he was doing?”—“l think he knew he was picking it up, but I do not know whether he knew he had it in the bedroom. He was gradually working up into a state of maniacal frenzy.” “He was in a temper?”—“Yes.” “He would know he was talking to Mrs. Norgrove?”—“He might have known he was talking to her, but would not know what he was talking about.” “Would he not know that a blow from a flat iron would cause an injury?”—“l am not in a position to say what Norgrove would do or think at that time.” “Would he not know whether it was wrong to strike a person?”—“l maintain that he would not know.” “How long do you suggest he had been in that state?”—“lt is impossible to say. He was gradually working up to it.” Witness admitted that in the billiard room incident Norgrove would know what he was doing. He had formed his opinions on his interviews with Norgrove and from what he had heard. Mr. Meredith: You remember the incident of his punching Mrs. Norgrove, and would you seriously sugges tthat he did not know he was punching her?—No, I would not say that. He must know it was wrong.

“Then what is the difference between his knowing the wrong in punching a woman and hitting her with a flat iron?” “When a man is in a mad condition he will do anything, and not know what he is doing.” “If it had not gone to extreme lengths you say he would have known what he was doing?”—“Generally speaking, that is so.” “After inflicting these injuries on Mrs. Norgrove and killing her, it is said he apparently rearranged the body?”—“That is quite a common occurrence. After a serious act like that a man becomes normal for a while.” Re-examined, witness said that if the man knew what he was dQing he would not have taken the precautions he did to avoid being seen. He would have certified Norgrove when he first saw him at the gaol, three weeks after the tragedy. Dr. James Moir, now living at Remuera, said he was practising at Ponsonby about 20 years ago, and had attended the Norgrove family. He remembered the prisoner as a boy, and knew that he was always in trouble, being given to fighting and quarrelling. From a medical viewpoint he would regard the boy as being an ultra-neurotic. This concluded the evidence for the defence. CROWN CALLS EXPERTS Medical evidence in rebuttal was then called by the Crown. Dr. Henry Prins, medical superintendant at Avondale, said that he had examined prisoner and was quite satisfied that he was not suffering from any mental disease and should be quite capable of knowing what he was doing when he struck Mrs. Norgrove with the flat iron. The suggestion regarding prisoner’s family history did not affect his opinion. At this stage Mr. Moody asked that the other medical experts be asked to leave the court. His Honour directed that they should retire. In reply to Mr. Moody witness said that the other medical witnesses had examined prisoner after him. They had conferred afterwards on the case. He understood that the woman who was killed had been an inmate of an asylum.. He did not think the crime as committed was characteristic of dementia proecox, nor would he term it a latent mental disease. Apparently the prisoner had been an abnormal boy at school, but ultra-neurotic was too vague a term to apply to him. He would say rather that he was a boy of abnormal mental tendencies. The fact that prisoner had rushes of blood to his head when he became excited and had to rush and bathe his wrists with water showed an unusual condition.

Counsel: Would you consider from his condition that he would be legally liable? His Honour: It is not for the witness to say -whether he is legally liable. Questioned regarding th© examination of prisoner’s personality, witness said he did not think that his outlook on life was distorted. Re-examined, witness said he had found nothing to suggest dementia proecox as far as the accused was concerned. The crime itself was not indicative of demential proecox. In a dementia precos case there was nothing to lead up to the offence. It was always unexpected. In the present ease it was a fit of temper following an argument. Dr. H. D. Hayes, medical superintendent of Porirua Mental Hospital, and who has had London experience, said he had examined the accused. He had heard evidence in the case, and in his opinion accused was labouring under no mental disease. He would know what he was doing when he struck Mrs. Norgrove. There was no doubt that he would know it was wrong to strike the woman. Witness could find no evidence to show that the accused had been labouring under dementia proecox during the last three years. The characteristics of dementia proecox2were an emotional disorder, and he had found nothing of that in the accused. Quotting a case of demential proecox witness said that such a person would laugh if he were told someone were dead, and be raised to anger for no reason. He could find nothing wrong with Norgrove’s emotions. They were quite normal. He illustrated this by expressing regret for what he had done and affection for the deceased. His demeanour in Court was also to be considered. His Honour: He objected to the cross-examination of his mother. Witness: That is a normal affection for his mother. It would be different in the case of a dementia proecox. Leaving out dementia proecox, witness said there was no other sign of mental disease. If the accused had been an uncontrolled child he would oe weak in control as he became °^ d ® r * To Mr. Moodv: I first examined the accused on March 12, and spent about two hours with him. . ~ Witness said it was the first time he had given evidence in a murder case. He obtained his decree in 1905. He had had many cases of dementia precos since he started- In the ordinary diagnosis of a mental patient it was usmil to take the whole family history. That would not be a potent influence m the final diagnosis. When at the gaol, the accused had denied that there was any insanity in the family. The accused: That is a lie. NOT AN ABNORMAL CHILD

Witness knew now that the accused’s cousins were in the asylum. After hearing the evidence, witness would say Norgrove was not an abnormal child. Mr. Moody: Then you disagree with Dr Prins? —I agree that he was not an average child. Was his life that of a normal boy?— No. A certain defect in the outline of accused’s head was referred to by Mr. Moody, and it was agreed that the medica’l men should measure the head during the adjournment In the above connection, witness admitted that any such discrepancy in the head would retard the growth of the brain. If he had known that the accused was one inch out, it would have proved abnormality. After lengthy cross-examination witness admitted that there was something in Norgrove’s case which pointed to a partial state ot* dementia proecox. There were, however, no symptoms of dementia proecox, although he was the type that could come to that state. Re-examined, writness said that if there had been any dementia precos in the accused when a child it would have been apparent when he was examined. The luncheon adjournment was taken at this stage.