RAMARAMA MURDER.

Taranaki Daily News, 8 October 1915, Page 4

RAMARAMA MURDER.

I IXQUEST CONTINUED. ACCUSED COMMITTED FOR TRIAL.; By Telegraph.—'Press AesocUtion. Auckland, Yesterday. , The inquast on Thos. Perry, murdered) at Ramarama, was continued to-day. Harold Pilkington, a neighbor of Perry, gave evidence that he witnessed the will made by deceased, in which no mention was made of his wife. On being informed that if his wife was not mentioned she might be able to dispute the will, deceased agreed that she bd given a life interest in the property. George McDowell, laborer, gave evidence that he was on friendly terms with Mr. and Mrs. Perry. Under cross-exam-ination, witness admitted that MrsiPerry frequently came to his tent at Ramarama where he was alone, and that he cohabited with her on September 21. He met her by appointment. He gave her ten shillings to .go to town. She told him that her husband had been nasty. Mrs Perry told him that, owing to what a neighbor had said concerning the parentage of her Child, Leonard, her husband had taken a dislike to the boy. Someone had told him that the oliild was iike witness. He had since been cruet to tlie child. When lie told Mrs. Perry that he was going to buy a farm she said she might visit him now and again. She once said that she intended to leave her husband and go to town. He had never supplied her with rartridges. He had given her 30s when she slated that her husband had burned her clothes.

The witness at this stage nttempted to evade answering questions, and was sternly rebuked by the Coroner.. William Sutton, farmer, said the previous witness was in his employ on Septemer 2-lth, and for some weeks previously. On.the night of September 04, they slept in the same room, retiring nbout 10 p.m. and rising about six. Witness knew Mrs. iPerry by sight, and twice within the past few weeks he hail seen her on the farm with McDowell. That was in (he dny-(ime.

Chief-Detective MoMnhon pave details of his investigations, and produced pieces of the skull which had been found in the. bed. The blouse in which Mrs. Perry slept was marked with blood stains, but she accounted for that by stating that when she heard the explosion she put her arm over her husband's face, and asked ''What's the matter, Dad!" Witness produced a statement which the widow had signed, after it was read over to her, regarding a suggestion that the gun had been fired through the window. Witness would say that it was impossible. He had made a test by taking the position occupied by deceased, while, Detective-Sergeant Hollis aimed an unloaded gun. When arrested on a charge of murder, Mrs. Perry replied that she did not do it. The accused gave her statement quite freely, and in a connected manner.

Detective-Sergeant Hollis stated that Mrs. Perry wlien asked what part of the bed she slept in, replied in the centre, alongside her husband, with her babv towards him, and her child lying on her left arm. Witness remarked that if shehad been in bed at the time her clothing would have been much more marked. Mrs. Perry did not reply when her attention was directed to some brain matter on the pillow wnere she was supposed 'to have been lying. There was also a quantity of matter on the portion of the bed which the woman said she had occupied. In the course of his investigations witness trained a gun from all the different angles permitted by the window-sill, but from none could such injuries as those sustained by deceased have been inflicted. It was impossible to get a dear aim at the left centre of the head where the charge entered the deceased. Witness searched inside the house for cartridges, but found none.

The coroner returned the following verdict:— 'I find that John Thomas 'Perry was murdered by being shot through the head, while lying in bed in his house ot Ramarama, The evidence shows that the muzzle of the gun from; which the shot was fired was held either against, or within two feet of deceased's forehead. The nature of the wound anil the angle at which the sljot was evidently fired render it most unlikely that the person who discharged the gun was at the time outside the room. The evidence shows that deceased's wife had for some considerable time past been improperly intimate with the witness, McDowell, and had been, partly on'that account, on bad terms with her husband, and had also spoken of leaving him. There is no suggestion that deceased had any enemies. Mrs Perry was in the bedroom with deceased at the time the shot was fired, and it would have been difficult for any other person to have left the room, which was filled with moonlight, after the shot had been fired without having been seen or heard. The gun, of which one barrel had been recent- .. ly discharged, was found in the bouse.' The evidence shows that so far as Mrs. Perry is concerned, a combination of motive, opportunity, and means, and an absence of any evidence tending to implicate anybody else, but in fairness to her, in view of the fact that she now stands charged wiln murder, and in view of the fact that the evidence is circumstantial and inferential, I do not propose to find definitely against her, or to analyse the evidence, in detail. It is sufficient to justify her being committed for trial, and it is in the interests of justice that f should not make a definite finding which mignt affect the minds of the jury who will try her." Accused was subsequently committed for trial.