MERRIMAN NOT GUILTY

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21088, 13 February 1934, Page 6

MERRIMAN NOT GUILTY

GROUNDS OF INSANITY HEARING OF MURDER CHARGES A verdict of not gui'ty on the grounds of insanity was returned by the jury, after a deliberation of threequarters of an hour, at the conclusion of the Supreme Court hearing yesterday of the charges against Keginald John Merriman, aged 32. a motor driver employed by the Post and Telegraph Department, of murdering his wife. Elizabeth Jane Merriman. and his children, Lois. Helen, and Garnet Merriman, at nis horn-. 118 Kerr's road, on the night of November 14. Merriman was ordered to be detained in strict custody until the Minister for Justice should let his pleasure be known. His Honour, Mr Justice Johnston, presided. Mr A. T. Donnelly prosecuted for the Crown, and Mr C. fa. Thomas, with him Dr. A. L. Has Jam. appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. Crown Prosecutor's Address Mr Donnelly said that Mrs Merriman and the three children had been killed in their own house on the evening of November 14 or early in the morning of November 15 by poisoning with gas from a gas oven. The evidence would prove that Merriman killed his wife and children, but the burden on ihe jury would not be as heavy as was usual in such a charge, the most serious known to the law. The accused had been examined by Dr. McKillop and his assistant, Dr. Brown, and both were of the opinion that Merriman was insane, in the legal and medical sense, at the time he killed his wife and children. The burden of such proof would normally lie with the defence, ibut in this case, where the Crown | was satisfied that the accused was inisanc at the time of the crime, he considered it his duty to place the evijdencc before the jury for consideration. The jury had to consider two things: Whether it had been proved bevond reasonable doubt that Merriman had killed his wife and family and whether it was satisfied that he was insane at the time. If the jury was so satisfied it would be ils duty to acquit the accused and say on what grounds it did so. Merriman was a chauffeur in the employ of the Post and Telegraph Department, and had three children, aged five, seven, and nine years respectively. His married life, particularly for" the last two years, had been unhappy, mainly on account of a man named Crowhen. coming between him and his wife. There had been friction and quarrels, and there was <ividence that there had been misconduct between Mrs Merriman and Crowhen. On Monday, November 13, the accused I saw a relative, to whom he slated that there had been more trouble and he had been kicked out, and that generally there had been rowing and displays of nerves. On the night of November 14 Mrs Merriman was 1 ti:= t. seen alive. Neighbours' Discoveries On the following day, neighbours, disturbed at finding no signs of life about the Merriman home, made investigations, and saw Mrs Merriman lying on the bed. They could not wake her, and eventually entered the house by the window of the kitchenette, which was filled with gas. A mattress had been taken from another room, and placed below the gas oven. The three children were lying on it, dead, and Merriman was unconscious. A rubber tube ran from the gas oven across the bodies. Tlie body of Mrs Merriman was found in bed in the other bedroom, dressed. There appeared to have been trouble between Merriman and his wife, and in some sort of conflict she had suffered a fracture of a small bone in the throat, and a number ot small scars. In addition there was a bi'uie on the temple. Mrs Merriman, too, had died of gas poisoning. The medical evidence would show that, the children died between 10 p.m., and 3 a.m., and the mother earlier, between 5.30 p.m. and 10 p.m. The suggestion was, said Mr Donnelly, that Mrs Merriman had suffered the injuries in a domestic row, that Merriman had laid her out on the bed and gassed her. and that lie had then gassed the children on a mattress in the kitchenette, and attempted to take his own life. There was no doubt as to who killed Mrs Merriman and the children. The main question for the jury was as to whether it was satisfied with the medical evidence. The accused made a long statement to the police explaining his domestic troubles, in which he stated that he did not remember the tragedy, j but supposed that he must have killed his wife and children, and that no one else could have done it. He I remembered nothing of the details of I the tragedy. I Evidence in support of the Crown j prosecutor's case was given by An-1 drew D. McLaren, surveyor (who] produced a plan of Mcrriman's house),! Detective D. McKenzie, Dr. W. II.! Sheffield, Dr. W. Hamilton. Thomas 1 Robson, Frederick Arthur Baker,! superintendent of the Post and Tele-1 graph Department in Kilrnore street,! Dr. A. B. Pearson, pathologist at the' Christchurch Hospital, (who. having l made post-mortem examinations of! all the bodies, declared that Mrs! Merriman and the children had all] died of gas poisoning), Felix J. T. j Grigg, Government Analyst, Elizabeth; Watson, Liliam Mary McKenzie. I Evidence of Insanity j Dr. A. C. McKillop, medical superintendent of Sunnyside Mental Hospital, said he had known Merriman for | j two years. He saw him in the hospi-i i tal on November 15, when he was] j unconscious, and on four occasions | since then up to January 13. The ac-! cused had a family history of men-; tal weakness, a number of close relatives being insane and under wit-1 ness's care at present. On November 22 Merriman was still confused | and incoherent. He was suffering I from simple mania at the time. He I had completely forgotten the circum-i stances of the occurrence on Novem-, ber 16 and 22, which was what would' I be expected in such a case. In Mav. ! j 1932, when witness saw the accused j regarding a relative. Merriman said I he could not take the relatives into j his own home because it was unsatis-1 factory, adding that he had not slept | for days. In witness's opinion Merri-l man was legally insane when he killed • his wife and children. He would be ' m a confused condition following acute 1 mental depression at the time of thej tragedy. ' | To his Honour witness said Miat i: sister, cousins, uncles, and an aunt of Merriman had been mentally defective ' At the time of the tragedy Merriman'] would not, in witness's opinion, possess power of forming his own jude- ! ment as to the nature and quality ot ; his act, or of whether it was crimm-i ally wrong. ' i His Honour: What the iurv wants i to know is whether the accused un- • derslood the physical nature of his' act and its result in turning on thei gas.—No. he would not. " > Was his inability to form such jud"ment due to mental disease?—-Yes " Was he at the lime able to know that his act was criminally wrong?— No. I am sure he was not." Dr. Malcolm Brown, senior assistant medical officer at the Sunnyside i Mental Hospital, said that he examined accused on December 30 and January 31. He agreed with Dr. McKillop's view that at the time of the tragedy he did not understand the nature and quality of his act and that it was criminally wrong. Henry Edward Crowhen, motor mechanic employed by the Post and Telegraph Deoartment, said that on November 12 he called at Merriman's house. Merriman said he wanted to see witness outside, and Mrs Merriman said, "What are you going to worry him about?" After an argument between the two, witness left and returned at 8.15 in the evening, asking Merriman what be had wanted to say.

i Merriman said he had nothing to say. j There was a discussion between Merri- ; man and his wife, and witness gained (the impression that they were going Ito separate. Witness arranged to call j on the Tuesday, but he did not get ! there until about 4.30. Merriman and ! the children were at the gate, and witness asked Merriman, who said he was sick, to tell his wife witness would not be there in the evening. Witness said he advanced Mrs Merriman £ls when she went to the Chatham Islands. I "Betrayed a Trust" To Mr Thomas, witness said he had known Merriman for about four years. He met Mrs Merriman about two years ago. Shortly after that he commenced to call at Merriman's house. Merriman at this time appeared to be a normally devoted husband and was fond of his children. Mr Thomas: Merriman welcomed you as a friend and decent man. He gave you trust. Did you betray it?— Yes. You knew when Merriman was away on certain jobs?— Sometimes. So sometimes you knew when Merriman was not at home?— Yes. Did you start calling on his wife when he was not at home?— Yes. Witness admitted that he had been guilty of misconduct witli Mrs Merriman both inside and outside the home. Did you consider that because she had trouble with her husband you had a fair fleld?--Yes. Witness, replying to further questions by Mr Thomas, said that there had been talk of divorce between the Mtrrimans in 1932. In spite of his wife's misconduct Merriman was willing to take her back. If witness had been named as co-respondent he would probably have lost his job. Mrs Merriman might have said at some time ' that, she went back to her husband to save witness from losing his job. Case for the Defence in his address to the jury, Mr i Thomas said that lie realised that the case had created a great deal of interest in Christchurch, and the public had formed strong opinions for and against Merriman. Those opinions had been based on rumour alone, end counsel asked the jury to dismiss all preconceived ideas they might have. For the Crown to succeed it was necessary to prove two things: That Merriman killed his wife and-or his chil- ; drcn, and that when lie did the killing !he had the intent to kill. If cither ;or both premises were lacking the ■jury would have to bring in a verdict lof not guilty. Mr Thomas said that unlike most such cases, in this one the Crown and the defence were in eompjetc agreement on the facts. The Crown, however, asked for certain deductions to be made from those facts and there the defence differed. The Crown asked Hie jury to deduce that the Merriman home was a happy one until the last year or two, when things went from bad to worse until on Tuesday, November 15, Merriman lost control ot himself, hit his wife or took licr by the throat, and gassed iicr while she was unconscious, thcji getting the children to lie down with him on the mattress beneath the gas oven, if the-jury was satisfied that (hat was the case its course was clear. ! "X suggest to you, however, that there is another solution just as feasible." said Mr Thomas. ' An Alternative Theory : Mr Thomas said that Merriman rej metnbercd nothing of the occurrence, and he must be believed, for otherwise he would not say that he supposed he had killed his wife and children and resign himself to whatever punishment might be waiting for him. The theory of the Crown was that Merriman murdered his family. It was clear that at that time he was far j from being a lit man mentally. McrriI man's suppositions that he had been j responsible meant nothing; he was i merely accepting a proposition put up j to him and which lie could not deny in j the absence of any knowledge himself. There was one other person who could have been responsible, and had Merriman realised the possibility j there might have been one more supi position in his statement to the police, "f am not criticising the police m ! any way. They acted with absolute i fairness in everything they did," said Mr Thomas, "but is the Crown soluI tion the only possible one on the facts I that have been presented? I suggest | that there is another equally feasible ! and it is this. The facts are just as j consistent with Mrs Merriman havin" killed the children and then commuted suicide as (hey are with Merriman having killed all four." It had come out m evidence, said Mr Thomas, that Mrs Merriman had threatened at one stare to commit suicide. 'Hie Summing-up. in his summing-up his Honour said that the only defence that could be reasonably put forward was insanity. "This case has taken a somewhat unusual course," said his Honour. "It must be remembered that it is a sordid and very sad tragedy of which you have heard, but that because a wife misconducts herself that does not provide a husband with an excuse for murder. Adultery committed by a man or woman is not a crime at all although it has certain civil results wnicli may, for instance, include the dissolution of a marriage. No man can take the law into his own hands and kill the guilty party. The theory ol Ihc Crown was eminently tenable, and the jury had to consider whether or not it was the only tenable theorv. The defence invited the jury to choose another theory, and ii had to decide whether tint was a reasonable one in the light of the evidence. Time was so outstanding a factor in the case that if reliance was placed in the medical evidence the jury could scarcely place credence in the defendant's theory. "In my opinion the theory of the defence is no alternative at all, but that will not necessarily be your view," said his Honour. "Assuming you come to the conclusion that the accused killed his wife and children the mere fact of such an awfui tragedy does not mean in itself that the man was insane. You have to be satisfied that at the time he did not know the nature of his act and did not know that what he was rtoin:-' was a crime." The jury was entitled to place the utmost reliance in the opinions of Drs. McKillop and Brown. The history of the accused showed insanity in the family, indicating mental instability, and the likelihood of his reason being uprooted from its foun- ! dations by the worry of his domestic : troubles. The jury retired at 4 p.m. and Ie- ! turned at 4.45 with the verdict set j out above. His Honour thanked the ! jury for its careful consideration of a I cose in which it had to assume a very grave responsibility.