GUILTY OF MURDER

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 355, 16 May 1928, Page 12

GUILTY OF MURDER

Norgrove Sentenced to Death INSANITY PLEA FAILS Tense Scene in Supreme Court FOUND guilty of the murder of his sister-in-law, Ernistina Mary Norgrcve Allan George Norgrove, was sentenced to death at the Supreme Court last evening. The Court was crowded and there was a tense scene when the jury filed back after a retirement of 45 minutes and sentence was passed.

The verdict “ guilty ” was followed by dead silence as Mr. Justice MacGregor assumed the black cap. Pronouncing the death sentence he said: *• Allan George Norgrove, after a long and careful trial you have been convicted by the jury of murder. It is provided that everyone who commits murder shall, upon conviction thereof, be sentenced to death. It is accordingly my duty to pass sentence upon you. I may say I quite agree with the verdict, which was the only one open upon the evidence. The sentence of the Court is that you shall be taken to the place of execution. and there be hanged by the neck until you are dead.” Norgrove, who had stood tensely upright with arms folded during the announcement of the verdict, remained for a moment motionless, and then swayed slightly. Two warders attening him touched him on the shoulder and he turned with them to descend the stairs. It was then that the full significance of the sentence seemed to fall upon him. He stood for a moment and gazed upward at the crowded women’s gallery. A woman fainted and had to be carried out. His two brothers stepped toward the dock railing, but a small cordon of police had quietly formed, and with linked arms prevented them from grasping his hand. Before descending the stairs he turned to his brothers and called:—“Look after mum, Dave.” Addressing the jury the judge said it had performed its duty under very painful circumstances. Unfortunately he could not see his way clear to discharge the jurors as there were further cases to be dealt with. However, it would be ar-anged that after the present session was over they would not be called upon to serve for three years. COUNSELL’S ADDRESS The final address to the jury by counsel for the defence, Mr. Allan Moody, was made at a quarter past three. The day had mainly been occupied in the hearing of expert medical evidence called by the Crown in rebuttal of the insanity plea. “After a long and patient trial we are at last arriving at finality,” said counsel. The prisoner stood charged with the most serious of all crimes and he would appeal to the jury again to dismiss from their minds all they .had heard of the case prior to the trial. The Crown Prosecutor relied upon suggestions to th© effect that the prisoner intended to injure the deceased woman. It was also suggested that it was the prisoner who had attempted to interfere with th© wedding of the daughter Mavis with the man Firth. The letter produced, written by the girl to her grandmother would contradict that suggestion. Taking the crime itself, it was definitely established by Miss White that prisoner had known that he could be seen when the assault took place. It was the responsibility of the jury to decide whether at that time and under those circumstances prisoner was not insane. There had been insanity, on his mother’s side, and he would suggest that the evidence given yesterday by his mother, brother, school-teacher and to-day by Dr. Moir, showed clearly his mental state as a boy. The evidence as to prisoner’s abnormality had, he considered, been amply corroborated by the medical evidence. The medical evidence called by the Crown also admitted that it was apparent that his was not the life of a normal man and that he did come within the ordinarily-accepted definition of dementia praecox. There were four verdicts which might be brought in, not guilty, guilty of manslaughter, not guilty on grounds of insanity, and one of guilty of murder. He considered there were two verdicts they might bring in—one not guilty on the grounds of insanity and another guilty on a charge of manslaughter. The verdict of not guilty of course, was out of the question. Counsel referred to the medical evidence, and pointed out that although the Crown had produced three experts, Dr. Beattie’s evidence had remained unshaken.

It seemed to him that the evidence called by the Crown had corroborated that of Dr. Beattie. In closing, Mr. Moody suggested in all sincerity that the verdict should be one of manslaughter or of insanity. CROWN PROSECUTOR’S ADDRESS Mr. Meredith referred to the relationships of the parties and the events leading up to the atfray. He thought it was necessary to consider these so that an idea could be formed of Norgrove’s actions. There had been quarrels between him and Firth. He did not get on with Mavis, and had chased her and threatened her. He had stayed at the house with Mrs. Norgrove, and had objected to Mavis marrying Firth and their staying at the house. This was resented because Norgrove thought his visits would be stopped. Counsel dealt at length with the incidents where Norgrove had assaulted Mrs. Norgrove and the subsequent happenings up to the day of the tragedy. It was important to remember the frame of mind in which Norgrove went out to the house on the day of the death of Mrs. Norgrove. It was quite clear from his own statement that he was smarting under a definite resentment because he was not told the day of the wedding, and because of his objection to the wedding taking place. Counsel stressed the fact that Norgrove forced the quarrel in the house, which culminated in his striking Mrs. Norgrove with the flat-iron. This act was that of a violent-tempered man who, when roused, did not exercise proper control over himself. In closing his address, Mr. Meredith referred to the alteration made in the statement of accused where he had altered a paragraph relating to his living with Mrs. Norgrove. He asked if that was the act of an insane man. As far as the manslaughter verdict mentioned by Mr. Moody, he would point out that there was not the slightest evidence of provocation by Mrs. Norgrove, and nothing to support such a contention. HIS HONOUR SUMS UP we tehfcy task and a great responsibility is thrust upon you to«ay,’ said his Honour, addressing the Jury * However, there was no great

difficulty involved, in that there was no dispute in regard to the crime. On the evidence the verdict of guilty of manslaughter was out of the question. “It was a question of guilty, or not guilty on the grounds of insanity,” stated his Honour. Section 43 said that everyone was to be regarded as sane until proved to the contrary, and to having been in such a state of mind as being irresponsible for what was being done. Dealing at length with the law on the question of insanity, his Honour said the only kind of insanity recognised in New Zealand was that in which the person at the time of the crime was labouring under some imbecility, and that was not the case in this instance. It was not the mere medical opinions, but whether, at the time he knew that he was doing wrong. The Crown had brought evidence to show that Norgrove had cruelly ill—

treated Mrs. Norgrove and had threatened to “fix her yet,” and that he had finally killed her in a brutal and cowardly manner. Evidence was brought to show that from his childhood the prisoner was bad-tempered and abnormal. Also on his mother’s side the ment.%l history of the family had not been given. With the exception of a school-teacher and Dr. Moir, both of whom had known him as a child, most of the evidence had been given by members of his family. It was first stated that he acted on impulse and that he must have been temporarily insane. SERIES OF QUARRELS The evidence showed that there must have been more than a sudden impulse. This was borne out by his own statement which showed that some considerable time had elapsed from the time he arrived and the committing of the ao*. From that statement it appeared as being the culmination of a series of quarrels. If the jury came to the opinion that he did not know what he was doing, then it would acquit him on the grounds of insanity. The possible gravity of the punishment was not for them to consider, but merely the question of the prisoner's state if mind when he committed the act. The question as to the punishment was ultimately considered elsewhere. His Honour said that considerable medical evidence was called by the prosecution, and unfortunately for the prisoner it disagreed largely with that given by Dr. Beattie. Dr. Tewsley’s evidence was of importance, as he was the gaol surgeon, and the first medical man to see the prisoner. His evidence, was to the effect that prisoner, in his opinion, showed no signs of insanity. All the medical men were cross-examined, and all had stuck to their guns. They had one doctor who said the prisoner was insane and four who said he was not. From the evidence the jury would have to decide not whether he was badtempered or suffering from a gust of passion, but that he was insane and incapable of knowing what he was doing. If he knew he was committing a crime he must have known he was doing wrong. “A commonsens© way of looking at it,” said his Honour, “was whether he would have committed the crime if he had known a policeman was watching him.” They were told there was no motive, but they had only to take what the accused himself had said. To the police he had signed a statement as true and in that he had admitted that he was doing all he could to stop the marriag© of Firth and Mavis. That was reported by Norgrove as the reason for the quarrel which led to the tragedy. THE EXTREME PENALTY CARRYING OUT THE SENTENCE METHOD OF PROCEDURE The arrangements in connection with the carrying out of the death sentence fall to the lot of the sheriff of the district concerned. The sheriff of Auckland is Mr. C. J. Hewlett, registrar of the Supreme Court. Under the Crimes Act it is provided that the sentence shall not be carried out until the sheriff has received an intimation of the Governor-General’s pleasure regarding it. The question is considered by the Executive Council, which is a meeting of the Cabinet presided over by the Governor-General, and if notice is received that the Governor-General will not intervene, the sentence is carried out within seven days of its receipt. Usually three Sunday’s are allowed to elapse before a death sentence is carried out. Executions take place within the walls or enclosed yard of a prison, and among the persons present are the sheriff, the gaoler, officers of the prison, a medical practitioner, any justices and ministers of religion who may desire to attend, and such military and police and other male adult spectators not exceeding ten whom the sheriff thinks fit to admit.