THE PUKEKAWA TRAGEDY.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume XII, Issue 3633, 20 November 1920, Page 5

THE PUKEKAWA TRAGEDY.

NO EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE,

JUDGE’S SUMMING UP. AUCKLAND, Nov. 19. No evidence was offered for the defence, but counsel for accused made a great fighting speech and dissected in detail the evidence for the Crown. • His Honour, summing up, said that the jury could put aside any question of manslaughter, because the one who killed Mr Eyre €id it wilfully and intentionally. The facts were that on August 24, sometime between 9.30 and 12.30, a murder took place. The first person to give notice of the tragedy was the widow, who called the attention of the children to it. The jury was asked to believe one of two things, that it was possibly —and in one part hf the speech it became probably— — the woman who committed the murder. “Is there a' tittle or evidence/’ asked his Honor, “to show that this gun could have been fired inside the room?” Could the jury possibly say that the injury could have been inflicted on the man by the woman firing the gun inside the room? If they could not, then they must look for someone outside the room. The police found from the na?turd of the man’s wounds and the position of the blood that the shot must have been Area from outside. If the jury came to that conclusion they would next consider who fired the shot. His Honor, in illustrating a case of circumstantial evidence, said that if a sober man went into a wine vault and came out drunk one did not need any evidence to say that he got the wine in the vault. Circumstantial evidence must inevitably point to one man before the jury cooler say he was .guilty. It was mot sufficient to - have one circumstance against him and another for him. “Do all the circumstances point as a whole to this man as having been the guilty person?” What were the facts? The murderer could not • have been a stranger. There was a horse named Mickey. That horse was not. at. Granville’s on the Tuesday night. That was proved by the fact, if the jury believed the evidence, that the marks had been found fourteen miles away from Glen Murray. Thorn had charge of the horse. How was the absence from Glen Murray to be explained? Not oply were there horses’s shoemarks, but various dogs had harkeo when they heard the horse passing. What was the animal doing there, and who was riding him? They had therefore the horse Mickey with some one on it in the neighbourhood of the scene of the murder. The gun expert had stated on August 30 that the gun had been fired within a week or ten days. His Honor added that there might be a doubt about, the pellets, but the wads found in the room were the same kind of wads as the accused had.

Dealing with Mr Singer’s remarks about Mrs Eyre, his Hoor said that the jury started with the fact thar the woma and the man did wrong. There was the question of motive. What was the position of the accused? If the evidence were true, after the husband’s return the accused had made what was practically threats against him. I-Te desired the woman, it might be that this desire to get the woman let him to commit this great crime. It. was suggested the crime ifiight have been committed by Mrs Eyre, but that was not suggested by the prisoner himself. He had denied the suggestion that it was done by her or the family.

In conclusion, hit? Honor said. “Gentlemen, you have to answer this: Do the circumstances point - inevitably to the man? Do they point straight to the man? Is there any possibility—l do hot even say probability—that any other person but this man could have done the thing" There is'the . gun. there are the cartridges, there are'the prints of the shoes of the horse he had charge of. His Honor added that if the Jury came to the conclusion that the deceased was shot from' the outside !T di.d not matter, what statements Mrs Eyre made. She was not the person who committed the murder. He would not. comment on the suggested charge against her.

Lowering bis voice, the judge pointed out the responsibility which the jury had towards the accused, and said they had also a responsibility to their country. They had not to consider the question of punishment. They had been sworn to act as honest men, and he knew they would -act as sucm. He therefore asked them,® on their oath, whether the accused was guilty or not. His Honor’s summing up lasted on* hour. The jury then retired at 1.3 V p.ra.

■ AUCKLAND, This day. The jury disagreed, and a‘new trial was ordered. l1;|'