MURDER CHARGE

Wairarapa Times-Age, 30 June 1938, Page 10

MURDER CHARGE

CASE AGAINST DOUOLAS AIWSTRONO HEARING AT WELLINGTON ALLEGED CONFESSION PRODUCED (By Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, This Day. At the hearing of the charge against. Douglas Alexander Armstrong, aged 20. of having murdered his father, Edwin Norman Armstrong, at Wellington on May 6. William Aitken Armstrong, of Wellington, student, said that at the beginning of May he was living at 20 Hinau Road. Hataitai. His family had been there for about five years. There were four in the family—his father, mother, brother (the acctjsed) and himself. On May 6. witness left home about 8.15 a.m.. his brother having left about 7 a.m. His brother was employed at the Railway Workshops. When witness left, he thought his father was up and about, though he had not been while his brother was getting ready for work. Witness did not think his brother saw his father before he left for work. Witness did not go home for lunch that day, but arrived home at about 9.30 p.m. to find his mother there. His brother was not there. His brother was interested in deer stalking and possessed knives, which he kept at home, some in his bedroom and some under the house. Witness recognised the larger of the two knives produced in Court. He might have seen the smaller knife at some stage in its manufacture. His brother always made the knives. His brother also- possessed a rifle, which witness identified when it was produced. It was usually kept in his brother’s bedroom, which witness also occupied. Witness continued that before he went to Picton on May 9. the police visited the house, and clothing was taken from a bedroom. Witness identified his brother’s working clothes and shoes, produced, and said his brother wore them when he left home on May 6. At Picton on May 9, witness saw the coat, waistcoat and trousers and the levy book which were produced in Court, and which witness identified as belonging to his father. Cross-examined by Mr H. F. O’Leary, witness said his father went to Australia last year, and was away for about months, returning about six weeks before his death. After his father’s return from Australia, the bolt was never left in his brother’s rifle. At times, before he left for Australia, the bolt had been taken out of the rifle. Witnesses’s brother and himself took it out of the rifle before the visit to Australia. After the visit, his brother took the bolt out, but witness did not know at the time that rt had been removed. The reason witness took the bolt out was because he feared his father might use the rifle on others in the family, who were in fear of him up to the time of his death.

Witness said his brother was continually making knives and models, and the like.. 'Witness knew he made knives for friends.

Re-examined by Mr W. H. Cunningham (Crown Prosecutor) witness said he had never seen his father’ point the rifle at anyone, but had seen his father examining the. rifle more than once about four or five years ago. Mary .Robb Armstrong, mother of the accussed, said she was a teacher, and has been marrieef to Edwin Norman Armstrong for 22 years. When accused left for work in the morning of May 6. her husband was not out of bed. He was still in the house when witness left about 8.30 a.m. She did not see him alive again. She identified his body at the morgue on May 15. Continuing witness said that when she returned home at about 3 p.m. on May 6, there was no one in the house, and she noticed nothing unusual about the state of the house. The carpet runner in the hall was wet, but she left it until next day, when she put it out to dry. She subsequently replaced it. On her return to the house on the afternoon of May 6. Witness found a note which, as far as she could remember, she had put in the waste paper basket. It was in the writing of her son Douglas. She could not remember all that was in the note, but it began: "Good news. Gone to Auckland with Dad for work.” The next she heard from Douglas was a letter on the following Monday morning. The letter was produced and handed to Mi* O'Leary, and the Magistrate to read. In consequence of a request in the letter, she met her son at the Railway Station at about 11 a.m.. and remained with him until after 1 p.m. In answer to Mr Cunningham, witness said her husband was very “sore" on Douglas, who resented his father's treatment of witness. Her husband and Douglas had not been on good speaking terms for a year or two, and Douglas wished his father would go away, so that they would be left in peace.

Cross-examined by Mr O'Leary, “tn clear up some baseless rumou'-s.” wit nass said there was no question hv' .that accused and his brother ' ihc

children cf the deceased. Neither she nor her husband had been previously married. Her husband had been an accountant and had relinquished his last position in New Zealand in 1929 or 1930. Since then, her husband had done only a few odd days’ work. She had kept him all that time. He went to Australia with money provided by her —£130. She had asked him to go because she could not stand the strain any longer. He was difficult to live with because of his mental outlook. The understanding was that he was to stay in Australia and receive from her £lO a month for his keep, but he returned. Conditions wore much worse after his return. There was no ordinary, pleasant life in the home. She had no fear for her own safety, but was concerned for her sons. She had heard her husband threaten her sons, and had seen him act violen'; • towards them. Generally speaking, her husband’s apparent mental outlook was such that she expected that at any time his brain would snap, and- the boys would be murdered.

At this stage, O'Leary read accused's letter to his mother, a long letter in which the son said that because of the father's treatment of the family he had killed his father.

Charles Anthony Wilfred Wheeler, a taxi-driver said than on May 6, at about 1.15 p.m., he took a car to Hinau Road. He was looking for No. 13. but could find no such number. There ho noticed accused standing on the footpath. Witness asked whether he had ordered a taxi and accused replied that he had. There were two bags with accused. When witness went to lift the bags, he thought they were rather heavy and remarked upon it to which accused replied that he had some venison. The bags were fibrsuitcases. Accused directed witness to the Tamahine, but first to the Union Steamship Company. Witness waited at the company’s office, then drove tithe Post Office, and then to the Tamahine. There witness was unable to lift the heavier suitcase. He noticed some blood on the car mat, whereupon accused apologised, and witness let it go at that. Accused lifted the heavy suitcase, but witness noticed nothing peculiar about him. He identified two car mats, produced, as his. At an identification parade a few days later, witness had identified accused.