Munn Sent for Trial

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 938, 3 April 1930, Page 9

Munn Sent for Trial

WIFE-MURDER CHARGE Police Investigations Described AFTER three days hearing in the Police Court, the prosecution of Arthur Thomas Munn, on a charge of wifemurder at Xortheote on February 11, concluded late yesterday afternoon, when the accused was committed for trial at the Supreme Court. The defence was reserved. Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M.. who heard the case, announced he did not propose returning a verdict as coroner until after the Supreme Court trial.

The Government and public analysts described in the mornin? the finding 0 t traces of poison in the dead woman’s body, and in the afternoon Detective-Sergeant Doyle detailed his investigations and conversations with Munii up to the time of the arrest, id,-. V. It. Meredith prosecuted and E. H. Northcroft, instructed by Messrs. Bell and Speight, represented the accused. Mr. Northcroft, who had a tooth extracted on Tuesday, was indisposed t.nd did not appear when the afternoon sitting commenced. Accused was represented by Mr. R. R. 8011. Dr. Walter Gilmour, pathologist at the Auckland Hospital, said he was present with Dr. Murray at the postmortem examination. He agreed entirely with the testimony given by his .olleague. After having heard the evidence concerning the symptoms of Mrs. Munn, and the report of the Government analyst, the doctor expressed the opinion that death was due to strychnine poisoning. Mr. Meredith: Are the results of your observations and what you have heard consistent with anything else liut strychnine poisoning.—No. “There must have been more than one dose,” he added. Could there be any relation between a dose on February 4, and an attack on February 11?—It would be quite impossible.

' In my opinion more than two doses must have been administered to Mrs. Munn to produce the symptoms referred to,” said Dr. Gilmour, and with The exception of the poison taken on February 11, the doses would have been less than a lethal one." Mr. Meredith: Did the examination at the post mortem disclose any liability to blood pressure?—No, nothing that produces high blood pressure or which might be the result of high blood pressure. One efTect of the administration of 'strychnine was to raise the blood pressure,” he said. "Consistent blood pressure during the week would indicate that the administration of rtrychnine was being kept up.” DETECTIVES VISIT HOUSE Detective-Sergeant P. J. Doyle said that about 4 p.m. oil February la, in company with Detective Power, lie visited accused's home at 33 Richmond Avenue. Munn met the detectives at the" back door and at his invitation they entered the kitchen. Detective-Sergeant Doyle stated that They intended making inquiries into the death of his wife. Munn replied: “I cannot understand it; will the doctor not give a certificate. The detective replied: “No; I understand he will* not give a certificate, but I do not know the reason.” Asked how long his wife had been ill, Munn replied “About a week; she took a stroke about a week ago and never recovered.” The doctor had been to see her several times, Munn asserted, in reply to a question. Munn said that its wife had boei* given some medicine ordered by Dr. Dudding, and some salts he had given her. “I gave hir half a teaspoouful of epsom salts yesterday, but the doctor ordered her a whole teaspoonful,” said Munn, in producing portion of the packet from tiie mantlepiece. Asked what food his wife had had during her illness, Munn replied that she had only been given what Dr. Dudding had ordered, and what he (Munn) gave her himself, comprising milk puddings, fruit, but no meat. The detective took possession of the salts from the mantlepiece. Munn produced a bottle of medicine from the kitchen mantlepiece. Munn then made a statement. MUNN’S STATEMENT “My wife was in normal health until Tuesday, February 4. 1930. Oil that morning she complained of a headache. She got up at about 0 a.m. and she then complained of a giddy turn. She appeared ill and I decided to send for Dr. Dudding. The doctor treated her for blood pressure. Her condition improved, but the doctor told her she must remain in bed for a week. Sheresented this and said she would get up. I kept her in bed and attended to her wants personally as 1 had no woman in the house. "My wife's condition appeared normal to me from the time she went to bed on February 4, until the following Tuesday, February 11. She had no serious tuns during that week. During that time I was in constant attendance on her and, to my knowledge, she did not leave her room during the whole week. On February" 2 I left the house at 7.30 p.m., and went to Northcote. She appeared to be all right when I returned home. Between the sth and the 11th I was absent from home on two or three occasions in Auckland during the day time, and, during my absence, the two children remained with my wife. On February’ 11 my wife woke me and I save her half a teaspoonful of ep“om salts, as the doctor had iu- ■ 'nicted. She refused to have break-i~-.t.

"It was about 7.30 a.m. that I was in the room when my wife said: ‘I •lon t want you to go away, I want Jou to stay with me.’ She appeared normal, but I asked her if she were feeling bad. She replied: ’I think I a >n going to have a turn.’ Almost ten minutes later she got jumpy and tuoved her body gently as first, and then got worse. I said T would •ynl for ihe doctor. She said she not want the doctor but wanted Jj'e She insisted on not seeing the -octor. I applied cold water to her heart, as the doctor ordered, but she told me it made her worse. She appeared to lose her resistance, and I then saturated her with cold water applied with a towel. She recovered a little and I sent Mrs. Gill for the •1 octor and he arrived and I reported t 0 him what had happened. He heated her and remained about an hour. Shy appeared to go to sleep a "ii the doctor left. I remained in attendance on her, hilt later I became alarmed at her condition and I got i Mrs. Lydiard, a neighbour, to stay

with her and I went for the doctor, ; and he returned and pronounced life ) extinct. BUYING THE POISON “My wife and I have lived happily ] together and at no time had she ever threatened to take her life. She had no worries and her mental condition was quite sound. During her illness I had no reason to believe that it was brought about by other than natural causes. “About six months ago I purchased a quantity of strychnine for Is 6d from Mr. Johnston, chemist, at Northcote, for the purpose of poisoning rats. About a month later I returned to the same chemist and I told him that the poison was a failure as the rats would not eat it. 1 asked the chemist if I treated it w’ith syrup w’ould it be a success and he said ‘Yes.’ I told him then I wanted to poison the cat and he gave me a small bottle of liquid poison for which I paid a shilling. I gave the cat the lot by pouring it dow r n the throat and it killed the cat. My reason for poisoning the cat was on account ot it being old and appearing sick. At that time I had the bottle containing the balance of the strychnine in the pantry on the top shelf. The bottle was labelled ‘Poison,’ and I concealed it under an empty carton. I drew my wife’s attention to the poison and I told her what it contained. “To my knowledge the bottle containing strychnine remained in that position and I last saw it there between ten days and a fortnight ago. That was before the wife took ill. I did not discover the disappearance of the strychnine from the pantry until today, February 12, when the detectives came. I was present when Detective-Sergeant Doyle found a : bottle labelled ‘poison’ in a drawer of a chest alongside the bed where my wife died, and that is the same bottle that I had concealed in the pantry. The bottle was almost half full when I last saw it in the pantry, but it is now practically empty. I had no idea the poison w&q in the bedroom until I saw it when the detective found it. I used that drawer during the time my wife was ill. I had my collars in the same drawer, but I did not notice the poison. My wife always had water and fruit in the room alongside the bed. “I had no poison in the house, other than that found by the police. I have not at any time purchased or procured poison from any person other than Mr. Johnston, and, from him, only the quantity referred to. On the night before my wife died she said: ‘Will you promise me something?’ I said: ‘lt depends what it is.’ She said: ‘I want you to promise me that you will not let me go to the hospital.’ I said: ‘As far as I am concerned, you need not go to the hospital, but, if the doctor orders, you will have to go.’ She said: ‘I would sooner die than go to the hospital.’ I did not take that statement seriously. When I bought the strychnine from Johnston it was in a paper packet with a poison label, but I transferred it into the bottle. 1 took the label off the packet and put it on the bottle. I did this because I thought it safer in the bottle. The bottlij containing the poison I gave the cat I put in a sugar bag with the dead cat, and dropped it in the harbour.” STRYCHNINE IN PANTRY At the point where the detective reached the statement in which accused asserted he had bought some strychnine six months ago further questions were put to accused. “Have you any poison in the house,” the detective asked Munn, who replied; “Oh, yes, I have some strychnine in the pantry, which I keep for rats.” “Surely you do not keep strychnine in the pantry?” observed the detective to Munn. “Yes, I keep it covered,” answered Munn, who then entered the pantry on the back verandah. Munn put his hand on the top shelf sft 9in from the floor, and placing his hand on a honey carton, Munn said: “It’s under this.” “It’s gone,” said Munn. on lifting the carton. Ho turned round saying “we will look in the bedroom.” Munn walked into the front bedroom, followed by the detectives. Entering the room, witness noticed some floral wreaths on the bed, which was made up, but the room was not occupied. Accused sat on the left of the bed, between that and a chest of drawers. The detective commenced a search of the room, and on opening the top drawer of the chest he found it contained men’s shirts, two suits of pyjamas and unironed soft collars, which were in the right-hand corner nearest the bed. “On moving the collars, said witness, “I saw the small bottle, labelled

•lioison. . „ , . "Do you use this drawer. asked the detective of Munn, who said “Yes, but I do not wear pyjamas. I cannot stand them.” On seeing the bottle. Munn remarked “That’s it.” The detective wanted to know how the bottle got into the drawer, and Munn said he did not know. He thought it was in the pantry and had last seen it about a fortnight ago. On examining the bottle, the detective saw no finger impressions on the glass. The bottle contained a few small white crystals. After further inquiries the detective said he and Detective Power again interviewed Munn at his home on February 15. The accused then made a further statement. In this document, accused said his wife had always enjoyed good health until 12 months ago. She was sentimental and worried about trifling things. He referred at length to the purchase of the home, on which a Government loan was obtained and on which £9O arrears was owing, except for £l6 paid recently. Munn said that he and liis tvife attended a city theatre on the night of February 3, and ill the rush to catch the boat later Mrs. Munn was so exhausted that she had to be helped on In Ihp boat Munn further said the doctor had told his wife on the Tues-

day that if she did not remain in bed a week she would be sent to the j hospital. On the night before Mrs.‘ Munn’s death Munn said he was work-i ing until 1 a.m., and then came in and made some supper, his wife being asleep. She woke up and he gave i her some milk and some bread and butter. He attended his wife during the night, and when he wakened at; 7 a.m. his wife seemed all right. He ; bad mixed some salts for her, but did ! not know whether she took them. He denied that his wife was disturbed or was crying or hysterical that morning, He said he had no idea that tiie strychnine had been moved from the place where he had left it in the ! pantry. He refuted the suggestion j that his wife had vomited during her' illness. ACCUSED’S ARREST Witness asked accused what he was j going to do about the two young j children and whether he intended get- | ting a housekeeper. Accused’s reply j had been: “No damned housekeeper j for me. I know too much about j them.” That had been on Saturday, | February 15. After inquiries had been continued until March 8, a. warrant had been obtained for accused’s arrest. With Detective Power, witness had gone over to Northcote, where they found Munn in the house. Mrs. Stuck was also present and the two children. “I said we wished to speak to Munn privately in the other room,” continued witness. Munn’s reply had been: “You’re here again.” Witness had said he had a painful duty to perform. He told accused that he had a warrant for his arrest on a charge of murder. After the warrant had been read accused had asked what it meant and he was told that he was under arrest. Accused had asked what the evidence was, but witness refused to discuss it with him. Munn said “I told you X bought the poison. I did everything for the damned woman. Can I get bail?” Witness had told Munn that he was not bailable as a right, but that he could bring up the question wlieu he came before the Court. Munn, remarking that he was afraid the woman would leave, asked for permission to speak to Mrs. Stuck which was refused. Munn had then been taken to the central police station. Orme Power, acting detective stationed at Auckland, corroborated the evidence given by Dteective-Sergeant Doyle, except that he was not present when the latter part of the first statement was taken. Francis O’Connor. Assistant-Land Registrar at Auckland, produced copies of certificates of titles of properties, showing the Richmond Avenue place was in the name of Mrs. Munn, while other properties were in the | name of Mrs., Munn, the accused, and | Oliver Arthur Herbert Munn. ! Thomas H. Giles, inspector of the State Advances Department at Auckland, said that the amount owing on the department’s mortgage on the Richmond Avenue property was £Bl4. Ernest Henry Gibbons, clerk of the Auckland Terminating Building Society, the second mortgagee of the Richmond Avenue property, said the security was collateral to secure an advance over other lands owned by Munn. So far as he was aware there was no liability on Mrs. Munn. The sum of £512 was owing under the I mortgage.

W. H. de Leun, mortgagee of the property in the names of Munn, his late wife and Oliver Arthur Herbert Munn, said the amount owing under the mortgage was £412. The Government analyst was recalled to produce several other standard works concerning the extraction of alkaloids from tissue. The evidence for the prosecution concluded at 4.10 p.m. Mr. Bell reserved the defence and accused was committed to the Supreme Court at Auckland for trial.