MURDER TRIAL.

Taranaki Daily News, 12 February 1921, Page 5

MURDER TRIAL.

THE MATTHEWS CASE. MENTAL EXPERTS DISAGREE. EVIDENCE OF ACCUSED’S SANITY. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Christchurch, Last Night. The trial of Reginald Matthews on a charge of murdering Clarence Edward Wagstaff, at Timaru, on October 27, 1920, was continued at the Supreme Court to-day before Mr. Justice Herdman. Mr. A. T. Donnelly appeared for the Crown and Mr. C. S. Thomas for the prisoner. Dr. Crosbie was recalled by Mr. Thomas, who said he wished to clear up an ambiguity in his evidence. Did witness at the time he said that the standard of mental disease shown by accused fell short of the legal definition of insanity, did he understand wfiat the Crown Prosecutor was referring to? Witness replied that he was not clear about it. He meant that the medical definition of insanity fell short of the legal definition. Mr. Thomas quoted the passage of the Crimes Act relative to insanity and crime, and asked if accused was suffering from disease of the mind. Witness said “Yes.” He thought accused knew he was doing the act, but did not know he was doing wrong. AGAINST INSANITY. Dr. St. Ledger Grifcben, medical superintendent of the mental hospital at Kihikihi, said he made an examination of accused on February 4. He found no signs of insanity in him, no grounds on which he could be committed to a mental hospital, and no evidence that he was a paranoiac. He inquired into the personal history of accused. There was no suggestion throughout the interview of unfair persecution at the hands of the police. In his conduct generally during the examination, and in his speech and in his answers on general matters, witness found no evidence of insanity.

In reply to Mr. Donnelly, witness said that from the evidence he had heard at the trial, from his examination of accused, and from accused’s personal history he was of opinion that when accused shot Wagstaff he knew he was firing a pistol and he knew it was wrong to shoot a man. Witness was cross-examined at length by Mr. Thomas regarding his examination of accused. He did not believe accused is a paranoiac. * Dr. T. G. Gray, superintendent of the Nelson mental hospital, said he had examined accused and found no signs of insanity in him or evidence of delusions. There was no ground on which he could be committed to a mental hospital. PLEA IN DEFENCE. Addressing the jury, Mr. Thomas said they would have to be satisfied that accused wilfully committed the crime with which he was charged. He expressed his appreciation of the fairness of the Crown Prosecutor. There were two points on which they had to be satisfied: (a) That the accused did the act and did it intentionally, and (2) that he was sane when he did it. There’ was an overwhelming body of evidence to- prove the presence of accused at Timaru and the ticket picked up at the scene of the murder bore the impression of his stamp, but that did not justify thpm in convicting accused of the murder. Barring the incident of finding the ticket and the presence of Matthews in Timaru, what evidence had they to connect Matthews with the murder? Who has proof accused was in Timaru and dropped the ticket? There was the other point that cartridges found at the scene of the murder were from Matthews’ pistol. Mr. Thomas referred to the rifling on the bullets and the statement by the firearms expert that on each of the bullets he fired from Matthews’ pistol there was a small scratch, and also that on the bullet extracted from Wagstaff’s body was no scratch. Counsel also referred to the fact that Knapp had failed to identify accused. FAMILY HISTORY. Mr. Thomas went on to deal with phases of Matthews’ family history. The Crown, no doubt would make much of the fact that a number of members of the family were respectable men, but it should be remembered that a person burdened by a hereditary strain was liable to hend under stress. Mr. Thomas spoke of the contradictory nature of the medical testimony, and said it was left to the. jury to decide whether accused, by his actions, conversation, and letters, could be considered sane. He dwelt on the fact that Drs. Gribben and Gray had made a comparatively brief examination oT accused, and he submitted their evidence worthless. He contended t'hat accused acted under the stimulus of paranoia, and pulled the trigger without knowing what wrong he might be doing. In his concluding remarks, Mr. Thomas said focused was a mental leper and as long as he was allowed at liberty he would be a menace to the community “I now place the life of this young brother in your hands, and only add, God have mercy,” he addThe Crown Prosecutor will address the jury to-morrow, and His Honor will sum U P’ '