MURDER TRIAL

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 252, 21 July 1938, Page 14

MURDER TRIAL

Charge Against Douglas Armstrong CROWN’S CASE NEARS END Accused’s Mother Faints In Court The presentation of the Crown’s case against Douglas Alexander Armstrong, aged 21, cliarged with the murder of liis father, Edwin Norman Armstrong, at Wellington, on May 6, was nearing the end when the Supremo Court, Wellington, adjourned last evening. A feature of the evidence was a declaration by Mrs. Armstrong, mother of accused, that she had believed her husband to be “mental.” Leaving the witness-box, Mrs. Armstrong fell on the floor in a faint and was carried from the court.

The Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) is on the bench. Mr. AV. H. Cunningham, Crown Prosecutor, is conducting the prosecution, and Mr. 11. F. O’Leary, K.C., who has with him Mr. D. Foster, is defending Armstrong. Continuing the cross-examination interrupted by the adjournment _ on Tuesday afternoon, Mr. O’Leary elicited from Mrs. Armstrong that she had maintained he r husband for quite half their .'twenty-two years of married life, the longest period being from 1929 to the time of his death. One instance of the help she gave him was the supplying of £lOO to start a business. She gave details of other monetary help, including assistance for gold mining, at which he remained only four days. On one occasion in Dunedin he insisted on her setting up a dairy business, which caused her a loss of £O5.

After the court had been sitting for twelve minutes witness’s composure gave way. “Did your husband ever use violence —physical violence—to you?’’ Mr. O’Leary asked. Mrs. Armstrong: “Not physical violence, but the mental torture was awful.” Her voice trailed off and she collapsed in the witness box, where she was seated. After receiving assistance from the court orderly and the police matron she continued, describing an incident about six years ago when she had to get out of bed to intervene between her husband and Douglas. Her husband was choking Douglas, she said. Witness recalled the incident mentioned by William Armstrong the previous day, in which her husband slashed Douglas’s hand w’ith a knife. The wound was stitched by Dr. Zohrab. When Mr. O’Leary asked witness about the time her husband took up a poker’ she replied: “That happened many times.” Also he would take up handy objects and throw them. “I was frightened his brain would snap,” witness said when asked about, her husband’s mental condition since his return from Australia. She based that fear on his excessive violence and his obsessions. He imagined he was being followed by detectives and said he knew all about the atom before Lord Rutherford. He would follow her about the house. After 12 o’clock at night she would get little rest. He was almost impossible to live with. He had had malaria and sunstroke before coming to New Zealand.

Behaviour in Week of Death.

About a week before his death she was awakened by his talking and jabbering. From 'the fact that she was usually wakened about 12 o’clock she surmised that that was the approximate time. She switched on the light and his face “looked dreadful.” She left the house and later he came out and induced her to return; but he became more violent than ever and she left the house again and remained out until about 3 a.m. This incident happened in the week of his death, and his condition did not improve.

Mr. O’Leary: You, Douglas, and all of you, wanted him to leave you for ever?

Witness; Yes. You begged him jo go?—“Yes.” And you offered him the £lO to go?— "Yes."

Douglas had asked him to go?—“Yes.” You would not permit Douglas to mention it in your presence?—“No, I was frightened.” You would not permit it to go any distance in your presence?—“No.” She had asked him to leave on the Thursday night, witness said. She could not go on any longer. Her sons would know how she felt because they could see her health going down. Douglas would have to find an occasion when she was not present to speak of the subject with her husband.

The letter from Douglas was received by her on the Monday morning through her son William, who brought it from the house in Hinau Road, Hataitai, where they had lived to the place where she was staying. Mr. O’Leary: Had you anything to do with the writing of that letter? Witness: “No.” She merely received it, and as a result of it she met her son at the Wellington railway station on the Monday morning. They went to Oriental Bay. She gave the letter to the detectives. Re-examined by Mr. Cunningham on the disturbances between the father and sons, witness said that if either of them spoke at all and he wanted quietness he would just lift the first thing that came to hand and tell them to be quiet. She never saw her husband strike one of her sons with a poker. After his return from Australia she got little rest after midnight because of his talking to himself. At those times he was wide awake. Considered Husband “Mental.” Witness said she had quite lost her love for her husband, even before going ro Hinau Road. His honour: Is one to gather from what you said that you considered your husband “mental?” Witness: “Most decidedly, sir.” That applied to both before he went to Australia and after his return. You hiean that his sanity had gone? —“ln his periods of violence it had gone.” Did you at any time take any steps with a view to having him committed to a mental hospital?—“No.” Did you at any time from 1929 take any steps to secure a separation? —“We talked it over, but we could not possibly leave because we were getting our living in Wellington, and we asked him to leave.” But yon took no legal steps, that Is what I mean.— " No.” When Mrs, Armstrong was descend-

fell on the floor in a faint. She was attended by a group of police officers and court officials, while proceedings were suspended. Finally she was carried out of the court. Later, Mr. O’Leary received permission from his Honour for her to leave the building. Placement Officer’s Evidence.

A witness who was not called in the Magistrate’s Court, John Lewis, senior officer in the State Placement Office, Wellington, was next called. He said an appointment was made for him to see deceased at 9.30 a.m. on May 6, but Armstrong did not keep the appointment. Armstrong first enrolled on July 24, 1936, and from then to March, 1937, he called seven times at the office in search of employment. “Every time he called at my office he appeared to be genuinely seeking work,” said witness. “During the period March, 1937, to March, 1938, he disappeared from our sight and was automatically cut off the register. From March, 1938, to May 5, he reported on several occasions at my office.”

To a juryman, witness said deceased was offered work but the nature of his profession, accountancy, and his physique sometimes caused him to decline it. He was not physically fit to take work, in his own opinion. His Honour: And yours? Witness: It was difficult to diagnose. Although he might have looked as though he could do it, in actual fact he might not have able to. When the juryman said he wished to know whether Armstrong was definitely offered light work, witness replied that he would have to consult his office files. He returned later in the morning and said he could not answer the question definitely because records were not kept that would show it. Armstrong had refused certain employment. Unfortunately his experience and other peculiarities did not measure up to the requirements. Evidence on lines similar to that given in the lower court was given by Ethel Maud Livermore, -widow, who lives at 18 Hinau Road, Charles Anthony Wilfred Wheeler, taxi-driver, Stuart Hadyn MacDonald, clerk in the Wellington office of the Union Steam Ship Company, William John Harper, constable at I’ieton, Te Kanawa Wineera, diver, and Detective-Sergeant William McLellan, Wellington. Taxi-Driver’s. Denial. The taxi-driver denied that he had told a “Truth” reporter that accused was very excited when he drove him from Hataitai to the Tamahine on May G. After the luncheon adjournment, Jack Leonard Astill, salesman, and Arthur Merwood Parker, motor-car assembler, described their movements with accused on Saturday, May 7. Joking remarks, they said, were made to Armstrong about the finding of a thenunidentified body at Picton; in the evening all three Went to a dance. Sidney Abley, porter, said that accused booked into room 416 at the Hotel Waterloo on the night of May 7. Phyllis Jean Godbay, housemaid, said that she'saw the occupant of room 416 writing while in his room. She identified the notepaper on which Armstrong had written to his mother as that of the hotel.

Eugene Charles McCarthy, fitter, New Zealand railways, identified knives made by Armstrong. To Mr. O’Leary he said there was no secrecy about the making of the knives. Sub-Inspector John Carroll, Wellington, described the finding by the police of bloodstains, two knives, and a bundle of clothes at 20 Hinau Road, Hataitai, where the Armstrongs lived. Detective-Sergeant William Tricklebank told of finding a tenon saw under the house, congealed blood in the sump and a rifle bolt in a box in the washhouse. To Mr. O’Leary he said that the position of the bolt -was consistent with the suggestion that it had been hidden by the boys. Detective Andrew Reid also gave evidence. Cross-examined he said that the rifle, which he found on a shelf in accused’s bedroom, was covered with vaseline and did not appear to have been recently used. Acting-Detective Edwin Martin Grace said that he arrested Armstrong at Auckland on May 10, and was present later when he made a statement. The statement was read. Cross-exam-ined, witness said that, so far as he could recollect, the statement was given in sequence, and no part of it in answer to questions. “Take the portion where he described what he had done with the body,” said Mr. O’Leary. “Wasn’t he invited to say what he had done?” Witness: “A_t that stage accused faltered momentarily. I do not think he was invited; I think he carried on when he was ready.” He added that the whole statement was given voluntarily. Armstrong was comfortably smoking and seemed to wish to give his statement At the moment referred to he was rather upset; he seemed to hesitate .and collect himself. The hearing was adjourned till today.