THIRD DAY OF MURDER TRIAL

Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26353, 22 February 1951, Page 8

THIRD DAY OF MURDER TRIAL

Crown Case Completed

JUDGE TO SUM UP THIS MORNING

rhe evidence for the Crown was completed yesterday in the case in which Vincent David Anderson, aged 33, a breaker-down in a timber yard, is on trial in the Supreme Court, before Mr Justice Northcroft and a jury, on a charge of murdering Nathan Clark Atkinson, a vegetable hawker, at 104 Antigua street, on October 19. No evidence was called for the defence. Counsel for the Crown and counsel for the defence addressed the jury and the Court adjourned until this mom ng. when his Honour will sum up. The Crown Prosecutor (Sir Arthur Donnelly), and with him Mr

A. W. Brown, is appearing for the Crown. Mr P. I . T. Alpers, and with him Mr W. G. P. Cuningham, is rppearinr for Anderson, who

pleaded not guilty. W.lliam Patrick Callaghan, a barman. aid that at the beginning of 1949 he was employed at the Yaldaurst Hotel and acted as agent for a □ookmaker. Anderson did betting with him from the end of 1948 to July. 1949. “He did not get on too well and when he stopped he owed me £245.” said witness. “I saw him twice about it, towards the end of 1949 and in Jul.-, 1950. He told me he did not have the money to pay me but would try to do so. He still owes me the £245,” said witness. James Wili am Marshall, a mechanic, said he met Anderson in the Southern Cross Hotel in November. 1949. He took bets from Ande-son up to about the midrib of January. 1950. Up '•> the beginning of the year everything was square between them, but Anderson eventually finished up owing him £l2O. That had not yet been paid. Tn Mr Alpers, the witness said his limits on a nay-out were £lO for a win and £5 for a place. He never had an argument with Anderson about his dividends.

Lewis Arthur Griffin Rich, an accountant employed by the Land and Income Tax Department at Christchurch. said that Anderson owed the department £26 17s 4d for income tax for the year ended March 31. 1948. In August, 1950, the department pressed him for payment, and he paid £lO that month and' £4 in September. Wi*h t*e- sums deducted, the balance st ; H owing was £26 17s 4d. Richard DavM Cowper, a driver, said that in July, 1950. he was the owner of a truck and carrying business in Christchurch. He put the business and hru«“ up for sale. Anderson saw him on Juiv 24. 1950. about the business. He said he had £4OO in cash and the remain-’er would have to be by rehabilitrt'on loan if he was successful in buying the business. Witness told Andersen he wanted cash. Anderson telephoned the following Sunday, but witness told him there was nothing doing. To Mr Cuningham, the witness said Andersen seeiued still keen to buy the bus'n ess when he telephoned. Albert George Smith, a printer, said he helped a Mr Hemsley build a fence in July or August, 1950, and that the timber was obtained from the Addington Timber Company, where Anderson worked. Witness paid Anderson £2O 6s 8d at his house in August, 1990, though he was not sure of the date. Arthur John Brunie, a yardman employed by the Addington Timber Company. said Anderson had been employed there since January. 1950. Timber was supplied to Anderson in August, 1950, for £2O 6s Bd. Anderson gave witness the money to pay for it about November 1, 1950. It was made up of a £lO note, two £5 notes, and a 10s note. “Anderson’s whole conversation was noth’ng else but horse racing. He gave the impression he was a big better, but it just went in one ear and out the other. He talked about £lO each way on a horse and £5 each way. Working men don’t do that, so it only went in one ear and out the other,” said witness. To Mr Alpers, tt witness said he had never seen Anderson bet. James Herbert Milligan, a company manager, said his wife owned the house at 61 Moorhouse avenue where Anderson lived. The housfe was in two self-contained units, Anderson occupying one at 35s a week. Witness arranged with a Mr Hemsley to have a fence erected and the half cost was £2O-6s Bd.

Verdun Timothy Sheehy, manager of the Addington Timber Company, said that Anderson began working for the company on January 31, 1950. He w-s a good average worker. His gross wages were £8 17s a week at November. Before that his gross vage would be £8 10s, but with overtime nis gross average would be about £9 a week. Discussions with Neighbour

Roy Pearson, a welder, said his home was next door to where Anderson lived. Anderson had been in his home irequentiy to use the telephone and get his daughter. “I remember readme about the death of Atkinson. On the Saturday after it, we were both mowing our lawns and Anderson began talking about the murder,” said witness. "He asked me if i thought they would ever get the chap. I said they would likely pick him u? at the Kangiora races. A chap who would do that would not have many brains and he would likely be picked up half drunk with his pockets full of money," said witness. After that they had other discussions, and Anderson’s chief topics seemed to be his mother-in-law and the murder. Anderson said l e knew Atkinson, that Atkinson always carried a good roll of notes and must be worth thousands. On the Thursday before November 11, they had a conversation about trousers being reported found in Sandyford street. Anderson said someone must have put them there for a joke, that it was a silly sort of a joke, and he would not like his clothes mixed up in such an affair. “My wife said the police would be able to tell whose trousers they were by the blood. Anderson said they could not tell whose blood it was but only what group it was. He said he was O group in the Army, and it was the most common group.” To Mr Alpers, the witness said he did not know before Anderson was arrested that the police were looking for numbered notes. He could not recall seeing Anderson ever wearing a polo-neck jersey, though he had seen him wearing an Army type jersey. Anderson discussed the murder in a normal way. Zana Minnie Margaret n earson, wife of the preceding witness, gave similar evidence. She saw Andersoi. on November 11, and he was definitely •?- set, but she tl ought it was because of a row with his mother-in-law. To Mr Alpers, the witness said that on November 11, when Anderson was telephoning for a taxi, he tol i her ->t to mention it to his little girl as she might say something to bis mother-in-law, who would go mad about him wasting his money. In her opinion witness was a good husband and father. He never mentioned horse racing or betting to her. She could not remember him wearing a jersey. Joseph Frederick Lloyd, a soldier, said he had known Anderson for over 12 months. He placed bets for Anderson from November, I|M9, to June. 1950. The bets would range from £1 each way to £3 for a win and £2 for a place. Anderson had only one £5 each way bet with him. On Andersons last bet Anderson had a good win and paid off what he owed and 1 -- few P° un <is to come. There was I °v«r the dividend, for i whom witness < tolri^^2L. bet * I . had a Witness beu he yoyhi take no more . "ornoney h Anderson owed him ’" n Mr Alpers, the witness said he

finished up by paying Anderson £25. That would be m June, 1950. Roy Kendall, a truck-driver, said that about March, 1950, he saw Anderson talking to a soldier in the timber yard Anderson said they ,;aa been having an argument about a dividend. One Saturday in October, 1950. he and Anderson went to Atkinson’s house to pick up a cot Anderson had stored there. Atkinson was standing at the back door and he heard -Atkinson say to Anderson he had taken a bet. Anderson knew where the room was when they went in to get the cot. On the Tuesday, Trotting Cup day, Anderson said he had several bets, the biggest being £lO each way on Mobile Globe. >■ To Mr Alpers, the witness said he heard Atkinson and Anderson talking for two or three minutes before the cot was collected. Atkinson said he had taken a bet and Anderson said to Atkinson he would be round la tar to get some vegetables. He did not hear Anderson saying anything about bets. He though Atkinson said the bet he had taken was £o. His Honour: This £5 het, was it one Atkinson was telling Anderson he had taken from someone else or was it one he had taken from Anderson? Witness: It was a bet Atkinson nad taken from someone else. Neighbour’s Evidence Isabel Georgina Johnson, married woman, said she lived in the portion o. the house adjoining the portion in which Anderson lived. Anderson and his wilt sometimes asked her to mind the children by going in if the children called, but she never needed to do so. One night at the end of September or early in October she saw Anderson going along Moorhouse avenue ih an easterly direction. He went out in his slippers. Anderson’s wife was not at home that night, and witness had not been asked to mind the children. She did not see Anderson return. After the report of the murder she and Anderson discussed it at times. Anderson seemed to know Atkinson, and said Atkinson always carried a lot of money. On the night of October 19, witness went to bed about 8 p.m.. and her husband was m front listening to the radio. Mrs Anderson went to the theatre, and Anderson was at home that night. To Mr Alpers, the witness said Mrs Anderson sometimes said she went out to see Anderson after he was arrested. Witness used the washhouse practically every day She saw two pairs of Anderson’s trousers on the line the Saturday after the murder. They had been washed. There was a telephone box at the corner of Moorhouse avenue and Antigua street. Her husband usually listened to a serial on the radio on Thursday nights. To his Honour: She saw the trousers, which had been washed, hanging on the line on the Saturday after the murder She had seen no signs of working trousers having been washed before that. The Andersons had been there since June. 1950.

Desmond Francis Johnson, a postal official, and husband of the preceding witness, gave similar evidence. He heard Anderson walk up the passage of his adjoining flat somewhere between 8 p.m. and 8.30 p.m. on October 19. Anderson seemed to be wearing slippers. He usually wore slippers when mowing the lawn or pottering about in the garden. Anderson’s radio was on fairly low. When Anderson returned along the passage the radio was turned up very much louder. Witness went to bed about 9 p.m., and Anderson’s radio was still on. He heard it up to 9.15 p.m. It was turned down a bit, but still much louder than when he first heard it in the evening. John Dennison Bartholomew Daly, a clerk, employed by the State Advances Corporation, said that, on December 21. IMS- Vincent Dgvid Anderson applied for *,k>an of £975 to buy -a house. Anderson to sell furniture at £283. It was considered that it would take about £195 to put the place in order, so the total cost would be £1403. Anderson would have had to find £455. so no loan offer was made to him. On March 14. 1950 the department was notified by Anderson’s solicitor that the application for a loan could be regarded as lapsed. To Mr Alpers, the witness said the statements of assets in applications were taken very seriously. He had r,ot known a case where an applicant disclosed surplus assets so that he would be disqualified from getting a loan. Sale of Taxi Business Stanley David Mclntosh, a taxi proprietor, of Invercargill, said that Anderson ran a taxi business there up to July, 1948. when witness negotiated to buy it. The price approved was £B5O, but witness agreed to pay another .£BOO. The deal was completed on July 8. and he paid Anderson £4OO in cash from the sale of his private car to a man, McKinnon. There were two £5O notes in that payment. On July 9 he paid Anderson another £4OO by cheque. He paid Anderson a further cheque for £4OO, and that was cashed in Christchurch on August 9. On August 11 he made the final payment to Anderson. After that date he owed Anderson no money. Hugh McKinnon, a crane driver, said that on May 31, 1948, he bought a car from Mclntosh for £445 and paid him In cash. There were two £5O notes and £lO and £5 notes. The £5O notes came from the Invercargill Savings Bank: his mother-in-law, a Mrs Metcalf, who owed a certain sum to his wife, having withdrawn the money from that bank. John Bowman Allan, a clerk, employed ft Invercargill Savings Bank, said £lBO was withdrawn by Mrs Metcalf. She was paid in two £5O notes and eight £lO notes. Anderson opened an account with the banx on March 7, 1948, and the largest amount standing to his credit was £175 15s, on December 30, 1948. The account was last operated on on June 1. 1948. There was a credit of 3s 6d in the account at present. CJuy Nevill Crozier, manager of the Christchurch Post Office Savings Bank said that Anderson opened an account at the Post Office Savings Bank at Christchurch on August 4, 1948, by depositing a cheque for £4OO. On August 13. 1948. Anderson drew out £lOO in cash, but it did not include any £5O notes. On August 19, • 1948, Anderson drew another £lOO by cheque. This was cashed the same day at the Bank of New Zealand and was paid out in £jo notes. Ou August 27, 1948, a further £lOO was withdrawn by Anderson, but it included no £5O notes. Anderson closed the account on September 24. 1948, by withdrawing the last £lOO in cash, but this included no £5O notes.

Innes Hayward, principal of the note office of the Reserve Bank, Wellington, said that the £5O note on the police list was one of the 13 still In circulation out of 80 issued on April 27, 1939. The three £lO notes produced, and on the police list, were still in circulation. One £5 note was cancelled on December 5, 1950, and one on December 18, 1950. To Mr Alpers the witness said the old style 10s note went out about 1940, and there would not be many now in circulation. Seventeen of the notes on Atkinson’s list were out of circulation before the death of Atkinson, for they had all been cancelled in 1950 before Atkinson's death.

Chief Detective F. J. Brady said he went to Atkinson’s house about 9.15 a.m. on December 20. From the nature of the wounds and the bloodstains on the four walls and the ceiling it was evident that Atkinson had been the victim of a vicious and brutal murder. His trousers pockets had been turned out and were empty. Indicating a possible robbery. Every available member of the detective staff, even men on leave, were recalled, was sent to the scene, and intensive inquiries began into the life of Atkinson, his habits and associates, with a view to ascertaining possible suspects. Police in old clothing searched the locality for the weapon and the search went on for several days but no such weapon had yet been found. The search of Atkinson's house resulted in the finding of the cardboard sheet with the list of banknote numbers on it. Copies of the list were sent to all police stations, racecourses, and other places. A second list was circulated later, with the numbers of the 17 cancelled notes excluded. Special instructions were given to the totalisator staffs at Addington and Riccarton. resulting in the witness Lamb being detained on November 11. Chief Detective Brady said he was present shortly after 7 p.m. on November 11 with Detective-Sergeants Alty and Urquhart when Sergeant Alty told Anderson that Atkinson bad kept a list of banknotes and that the £5O note, found in Anderson's possession, and the three £lO notes, given by him to Lamb, were on that list. Sergeant Alty asked Anderson if he could explain how he came to be in possession or the notes. Anderson was visibly affected by the information, and he said he could not explain how he came to have these notes. Sergeant Alty then formally charged Anderson with murder. Anderson said: “You're charging a man who is innocent. I can't make bn’ how the notes came into my possession This will be a shock to my wife. I never killed Atkinson. I’ve always gambled. I’m not guilty.” His Honour then asked the foreman of

the jury to explain the question about access he had asked earlier on behalf of the jury.

The foreman said some jurors thought there was no fence at the back of Atkinson’s property and a person could get from the property to a right-of-way. Chief Detective Brady said that Atkinson’s property adjoined a timber mill which led into Kent street, and this led into Montreal street, which led across Moorhouse avenue. There was a wire fence round Atkinson’s property, just sufficient to keep in a horse The back door of the house was locked on October 20 and the only way of access was by the front door.

To Mr Alpers, Chief Detective Brady said there was a very extensive search for the weapon. Anderson’s finger prints were taken after his arrest and an attempt was made to find prints at Atkinson’s. He thought Atkinson had money in the Post Office, but he had no trading bank account. There was no information on the owner of the grey jersey found in a shed. The tag on it showed it to be O.S. size. The other jerseys produced were much smaller. That closed the case for the Crown ana Mr Alpers said he would not call any evidence for the defence. Address by Crown Counsel Sir Arthur Donnelly, addressing the jury, said the evidence for the Crown was the only evidence before them, and the whole case for the defence would be in the address of Anderson’s counsel. The Crown case was that, after the witness Rogers left Atkinson on the evening of October 19, Atkinson was murdered lor the roll of notes he was known to carry The motive for this murder was the desire of the murderer to get the. large sum of money, possibly exaggerateu as to its size, which Atkinson was known to have. The motive of greed was a strong ana compelling one. for the murder was violent, vicious, and most determined. Atkinson, while lying on his bed, was struck many times by a powerful weapon and blood was splashed all over the room.

“The evidence is that Anderson was in Hire need of money; he was being pressed for income tax; he owed a moneylender some £80; in August, 1950, he had been paid £2O for timber and had not passed it on to his employers; he was a gambler in a big way; he owed one bookmaker £245 and could not pay; he owed another bookmaker £l2O and could not pay." said Sir Arthur Donnelly. "No doubt some of you members of the jury will know what would be the fate of a blind bettor who bets in £5 and £lO each way. Anderson was not able to take up a loan for which he had applied. Another bookmaker says that Anderson was broke in 1950. He got a loan on his car, then had to sell the car and lost the money betting." Anderson sold his taxi business in Invercargill, and when he came to Christchurch he put £4OO in the savings bank, tri a few weeks he had drawn the lot

and it might be coincidence that part of that period coincided with part of the Grand Natfonil meeting, said Sir Arthur Donnelly. In July. 1950, he had some dealings with Atkinson and had asked for a loan of £4OO, but was turned down. At the time of the murder Anderson's position was awkward. He was in the hands of a moneylender and had a bad spin at the races—he apparently had an incurable propensity for betting. It did not follow that because of these things he did the crime, but they were elements to consider.

No one actually saw the murder committed, so the Crown case depended on circumstantial evidence. Silent facts could speak as truthfully as human witnesses. Some inanimate things, like the five banknotes traced to Anderson, were dumb yet eloquent witnesses, supporting the theory that Anderson committed the crime. Sir Arthur Donnelly then quoted the fable of the fox refusing to visit the lion in the cave, because he saw footprints going in but none coming out. as an example of circumstantial evidence. The real description of circumstantial evidence was that it was like a rope of strands for, if enough strong strands remained it could moor a ship even if weax strands went.

Inis case was mixed up with gambling and racing. Anderson was a Mg better and a foolish better, and his end as a betting man was plain. The chief strand in the rope of the Crown case was the five notes traced to Anderson, the £5O note, the three £lO notes, and the £5 note. The jury should ask themselves how often any of them had seen a £5O note. Few persons ever saw one. This £5O note was on a list in Atkinson’s writing. About three weeks after Atkinson's death it was found in Anderson's pocket. What were the odds against that happening innocently? Then within three weeks of the murder Anderson's agent was found handing in two £lO notes at the totalisator at Riccarton. These notes also were on Atkinson’s list. What were the odd?; against them being innocently in Anderson's possession? There was also the £lO note handed in at Addington. Further there was the £5 note included in the sum paid to Gunn. Before October 20 Anderson was In dire straits, but immediately after that date he began to show signs of prosperity. He* paid £2O to the timber company, £l6 for bets to one bookmaker and £5 to another. He gave Lamb £lO3 in about a week to place bets for him. He Said Gunn £Bl. The total on Atkinson’s st was £27o—the murderer would, no doubt be disappointed there was not more —and in three weeks £283 was traced to Anderson’s possession. Anderson’s explanation was that the money came from the sale of his taxi business in Invercargill, but that was all cleaned up at the end of July, 1948, and by the end of August, 1948, Anderson had spent the money. Then there were the minor strands in the rope of the case, said Sir Arthur Donnelly. Anderson knew Atkinson had money. He had an opportunity to go out on the night of October 19 when his wife was at the theatre and Atkinson's house was only nine minutes’ walk away. He also had a motive. The jersey produced was almost certainly worn by the man who committed the murder. He would concede that its identification as being worn by Anderson was not strong enough to justify the jury finding it sufficient by itself, but it was an element in the case, one of the strands. Then the woman in the adjoining flat said she saw two pairs of Andersons trousers washed on the Saturday morning after the murder, but it was the first time she had seen this done since the Andersons went there in June. “I submit that the possession of the notes shows that Anderson committed the crime—coupled with the other circumstances, coupled with his financial transactions and coupled With his desperate need.” said Sir Arthur Donnelly. "But the most important point is his possession of the five notes. Which plainly bring him into the room and put. the weapon in his hands somewhere about 9 o'clock on the night of October 19.” Counsel For Defence Mr Alpers said there were two matters on which he quarrelled with counsel for the Crown. Sir Arthur Donnelly had said that the money from the taxi business was~cleaned up in 1948. That was not so. Anderson got more 1 ’ than £l6OO for the business. He got £4OO Ip cash in Invercargill and a cheque for £4OO went into the Post Office bank in Christchurch, the money being drawn out again. But the Crown case did not touch the other £BOO. The Crown also said that £270 was traced to Anderson or spent by him. Mr Brown c in opening, most unfairly said that Anderson failed to account to his employers for £2O for timber. But the timber was booked out to Anderson and he paid for it, even if it was November. There was £25 not in the category claimed by the Crown, so the amount came down to £230. The Crown had traced only £B5 by notes, said to be on the list.

The Crown had called 67 witnesses and there had been two addresses by counsel for the Crown by way of convincing the jury. Anderson had been in gaol for three and a half months, and an army of police had sought evidence against him, but not one single thing had been found to connect him with the crime. Much of the value of the evidence they thought they bad was now gone. Now, for the'first time Anderson had his chance The Crown rested its case on the bank notes, and that was not enough.

Counsel said he was not criticising what the police did but he would ask the jury not to be influenced for one moment uy the opinion of the police. It was their job to find the alleged perpetrator of a crime but, having picked tueir man and Having brought him to Court, it was only human nature that they should stand by their judgment and have preconceived views. Counsel then quoted instances of what he referred to as a slight twist given to Anderson's actions. The sole question before the jury was: Who committed the murder? The onus was On the Crown to prove its case beyond all ■ reasonable doubt. If there was a reasonable doubt, Anderson was entitled to the benefit of it. Counsel submitted that the Crown case went no fur-ther-than suspicion, and suspicion was not enough. , The only substantial evidence against Anderson rested on the banknotes, but this was so unreliable that it should be ignored. The list was' undated, unsigned, and with nothing to say what it was. No fewer than 17 of the listed notes had passed out of Atkinson’s hands before the murder. The list could not by any means be complete. There was po evidence of the list ever having been made. Not one witness had spoken of Atkinson using the list. What significance could be attached to it? None, he submitted- On supposition the jury Was asked by the Crown’ to convict a man of murder. Anderson could have got the money in many ways. His whole conduct was consistent with innocence. \

The time of Atkinson’s death as given by Dr. Pearson put it far too late for Anderson to have caused it, said Mr Alpers. If Anderson had committed the murder, he would have had to wash every inch of himself and hide his clothes so that he woiild escape detection by his wife when she came home from the theatre. It was impossible in those circumstances that he could have committed the crime. Further, people were coming and going _past Atkinson's house in the evening. Three different persons fastened his gate at various times, and Atkinson was an identity; he had more than the usual number of callers in an evening. Anderson must be innofcent. No bloodstains were found on his clothing; there were no . fingerprints; there were no signs of violence on his hands or person; no weapon was traced to him; no one saw him coming from or going to the house; no one heard or saw him wash himself; and no incautious statements were made by him. It was Completely out of character to attribute such a murder to him. The jersey was not Anderson’s No one ever saw him Wearing it, said Mr Alpers. The jury . st ?puld look at its size. They would find it was much too big for him. There was no doubt the jersey was worn by the killer bf Atkinson, and there was no doubt the jersey was not worn by Anderson. On that fact alone he was entitled to ask for an acquittal, said counsel. There was no doubt about it that the £5O note was not in Atkinson’s roll when the witness Rogers saw Atkinson at 7.30 p.m. on October 19. If the £5O note fell then the whole case fell. “There are only two things brought bv the Crown to ■dentify the murderer—the notes and the Jersey. The botes are cancelled out and the jersey shows beyond all doubt that Anderson was not the killer,” said Mr Alpers.

His Honour said that, having regard to the time, it would be undesirable for him to sum up and ask the iury to reach a decision last evening, so the Court would be adjourned until this morning.