JURY DISAGREE.

Taranaki Daily News, 20 November 1920, Page 5

JURY DISAGREE.

END OF THE THORN TRIAL . COUNSEL'S PLEA IK DEFENCE, ~. ANOTHER TRIAL ORDERED. , By telegraph.— Press Association Auckland, Last Night. The trial of Samuel John Thorn, charged with the murder of Siduey Seymour Eyre, at Pukekawa, on August 24, was continued in the Supreme Court . to-day. Mr. Martin announced that he would call no further evidence for the Crown. Mr. Singer then addressed the jury if the verdict was an adverse one, the Judge must pass sentence of death. It was the duty of the Crown to prove to the last inch the necessity to take a human life. They would remember . that at the inquest accused, who was , a compellable witness, and who had refused on his counsel's advice to answer questions, had on oath given an emphatic denial that he committed the murder. With reference to the conversation between Taylor, the hotel-keeper, and Thorn, when the witnesß Shugar was a mere listener, the jury would be satisfied not only that accused's remark was not an admission, but was a natural answer to what had previously transpired. Counsel thought he could show there were the gravest doubts in the case, and that there was not only a possibility, but an extreme probability, that not the accused, but someone else, committed the murder. NO FOOTMARKS FOUND. Counsel said the report given to De-teotive-Sergeant Cummings that Thorn had been seen outside on the night of the murder was untrue. Ii anyone had seen him the evidence would have been given. Circumstantial evidence must be for the defence. He pointed out that strong in every link. The expert Haiard—he might call him the hazardous expert—and two doctors declared the shot had been fired by a left hand shot. It was suggested that Eyre was shot in the left eye. A left-handed shot, fired from the window would have struck Eyre's right eye. It was extraordinary that 'witnesses declared the shot was necessarily fired from outside the window, when the same angle could have been obtained by moving the bed. For some Weeks Eyre was sleeping heavily. Was ho given something, or had he taken something to make him sleep? Was he such a heavy sleeper that he would not be disturbed by the moving of the bed? Outside the house there were no footmarks and no finger-prints. The Crown's theory was based on a planned murder. Was it unreasonable to suppose that those who planned it planned it so that everyone should believe Eyre was shot from "outside the window? Mr. Singer commented on the fact that the contents of deceased's stomach had not been analysed. That was nearly as extraordinary as the fact that there was no evidence of footmarks by the window. In regard to the horse shoe prints in the mud these had only been traced for 4y 2 miles. If these marks were the wonderfully distinct things they were said to be why were they not traced to Granville's place? Surely that cast considerable doubt upon the suggestion that they Were made by Mickey's shoes. A detective had examined some' 1300 horses, of which 418 were shod. It might he that the 4loth horse had had his shoes taken off before the police arrived. If it. could have been shown conclusively that the marks were made on the night of Tuesday, August 2-1, it might have slightly strengthened the Crown's case, It had been admitted by the Crown that even if it was proved that they were Mickey's shoe marks at the post, tymt did not prove that Thorn was there that night, QUESTION OF MOTIVE. The question of motive was one of the most important in the case. It was important in a case of icircumstantial evidence; it was a great peg upon which the Crown had hung its hat; but even strong evidence of motive was not sufficient. Mrs. IJyre had said that the accused had her in his power. Did the jury think anyone could get that calm, cold, callous, and calculating woman in his power, or would she be the one to put tentacles round some man? Here lay the destruction of the Crown's theory of motive. When Thorn packed up his tilings more than once that, woman who hated him, despised him, and feared him, instead of saymg "Here is a mouth's wages; get out for heaven's sake," asked him, "What is the matter; what are you going for?" Thon in regard to the advertisement, she showed it to her husband, but never asked what it meant, and despite a woman's natural curiosity she never asked about certain letters Eyre received from abroad, and which he burned immediately he read them. Was the advertisement put in the paper by someone connected with the murder? Must not Mrs. Eyre's attitude have been that of a woman who did not care, or had some animosity towards her husband? Could a woman admitting misconduct as she bad done have any regard for him? Mr. Singer added that it had been suggested that counsel had east a slur on a dead man. His Honor: If you were not making a charge of improper conduct against the husband I do not know what you meant. NIGHT OF THE MURDER. Mr. Singer: I made no such 1 charge. I am not suggesting it is a crime or a weak thing to use bad language. I am suggesting that this woman was of such a nature that no ordinary man would have failed to use bad language towards' her. I invite you, gentlemen, from her i evidence, to say that if he did not'"use 'jbad language to her then he was an !l absolute angel. Did she deserve it! Am J I casting a slur on the dead by saying !that this man called her bad names? There are no names I have in my vocabulary which I think this woman does not deserve. With regard to incidents of the night of the murder, counsel said that Mrs. Eyre could not tell within two hours when the dog barked. If that was so, then the barking could have been before she went to bed. If the evidence raised the question whether it was possible that Mrs. Eyre fired the shot, then the accused was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. There was no flurry, fear, or horror on her part. When counsel repeatedly referred to her husband's brains and blood, and showed her a horrible photograph, had they ever seen a calmer demeanour'.' Was there any meaning in that? She had admitted that on the night «f tho murdsr

she was satisfied it was Thorn's footsteps she heard, and also his gun, and she admitted she told Tier children hot to mention her familiarity with Thorn, because they "might be the means of hanging an innocent man." "Significant words," observed counsel. "Why should she come here and blast her re« putation?" Counsel presumed she would rather have her reputation blasted than be tried for murder. That was likely her choice. Why did she not tell tho police that Bhe heard Thorn's steps? ' The most conclusive fact in the case, said counsel, was that when accused asked Mrs. Eyre on Sept. 4 why she suspected him, she replied that because under the circumstances he was the only one she could think- of. Did the jury not think she would have answered, "Why, Sam, I heard you"? Possibly there was .someone other than Mrs. Eyre or accused in the case. Mr. Ringer concluded his address at 12.25 p.m. Mr. Martin did not address the jury. JUDGE SUMS UP. The Chief Justice, in summing up, referred to Mr. Singer's remarks about Mrs. Eyre. The jury, he said, started with the fact that the woman and the man did wrong. There was the question of motive. What was the position of accused? If the evidence was true, after the husband's return accused had made what were practically threats against him. He desired the woman; ne was dominated by love or lust for her; they could use whichever word they wished, it did not matter. It might be that this desire to get the woman led him to commit this great crime. If the jury came to the conclusion, in the event of the other evidence being correct, that Thorn was in the neighborhood of Eyre's house on the night of the murder; if be was dominated by this lust—or love, as some people called it—then he might have wanted to get rid of Eyre. It was suggested the crime might have been committed by Mrs. Eyre, hut that was not suggested by the prisoner himself. He had denied the suggestion that it had been done by her or the family. If it was done by hor, where was the .gun? The one gun in the place had not been fired for about a month. "Can there be any shadow of suggestion," asked his Honor, "that you, as honest men, can rely upon to say that this shot was fired by some person in the house?" The accused had not suggested that; on the contrary, he suggested that it might have been fired from outside. If the suggestion did not come from Thorn it was not necessary to go further into it. But there was a gun found in the accused'* possession that had Jjeen fired about the same time as the gun\that killed Eyre. His Honor added that if the jury came to the conclusion that the deceased was shot from outside it did not matter what statements Mrs., Eyre made,, she was not tho person who committed the murder. He would not, comment on the suggested charge against her; he thought that the charge should not be considered by the jury unless the evidence pointed inevitably to her. Could they say that any evidence pointed to her at all? ' After a long retirement the jury intimated that there was no chance of an agreement, and a new trial was ordered.