TOMAHAWK TRAGEDY

Evening Star, Issue 21076, 13 April 1932, Page 6

TOMAHAWK TRAGEDY

BUCHANAN’S CONDITION WAS HOPELESS DYING STATEMENT TO POLICE DOCTOR PRELIMINARY HEARING OF MURDER CHARGE Evidence that from the time the doctor arrived the condition of Findlay Douglas Buchanan, who was fatally shot at Tomahawk early in the morning of March 30, was hopeless, and that the injured man, on being told that he was to die, made a statement that O’Connor shot him, was given in the Police Court to-day, when Lewis William O’Connor was charged with committing the murder. The accused was allowed to be seated, his counsel stating that the man was not well. Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., was on the bench, and the Crown Solicitor conducted the case for the police. Accused was represented by two barristers.

The Magistrate said he proposed to take the coronial inquiry concurrently with the preliminary hearing of the charge. The accused would not be prejudiced, as at the end of the hearing of evidence he would not return a verdict as coroner in the meantime if he found that there was a case for trial. Counsel agreed with the course proposed. DYING STATEMENTS. Dr William Evans, police surgeon, said that on March 30, at about 1.40 a.m., in response to a police message, he proceeded in a car driven by Constable Parkes to Tomahawk, and on entering a dwelling saw a man propped up in bed, and he was afterwards informed that he was Buchanan. Mrs Buchanan and a neighbour were also, there. Witness told the man in bed he was Dr Evans, and asked him what the trouble was. He said he had been shot in the side. He was dressed in pyjamas, and had two undergarments on. He made an attempt to show witness his injuries, and on lifting his coat witness saw a gunshot wound in the left side of the chest. It was circular in shape, and about 2in in diameter. The edges were blackened, and there were some points of discolouration of the skin, duo apparently to the entrance of shot. The skin and muscles under the wound had been carried away, leaving a considerable opening into the chest and abdomen. There was a mass of fat protruding from the wound. Buchanan was suffering from shock. Witness dressed the wound. While waiting for the ambulance, which he had ordered immediately on arrival, witness sat on the side of the bed beside the injured man, and told him that, in his opinion, there was no hope of his recovery. That was, in fact, his opinion after seeing the extent of the injuries, which he was certain would cause death.

After a pause of ten to twelve seconds witness said; “You know you are going to die.” He replied: “ I know.” Witness then said that under such circumstances he understood any statement he made might be used as evidence. Witness asked; “Who shot you?” and he replied: “O’Connor.” Witness asked: “ How do you know? ” and he replied: “I saw him when I opened the door.” The ambulance then arrived, and Buchanan was placed on a stretcher, carried to the ambulance, and transported to tho Dunedin Hospital. At 11.30 the same morning witness was present at the commencement of a post mortem conducted by Dr Watt on Buchanan’s body.

Dr Aubrey James Mason, resident surgical officer at the Dunedin Hospital, said Buchanan was admitted at 2.45 a.m., suffering from a gunshot wound involving the lower part of the chest on the left side. Buchanan was given a blood transfusion, but his condition sank. There was very slight hope for him from the beginning, and he died at 7 a.m. Buchanan was still conscious when the police superintendent _ saw witness, in whoso opinion the injured man was not in a fit condition to answer questions. In fact, Buchanan became unconscious shortly afterwards. Dr Morris Netterville Watt, clinical pathologist attached to the Dunedin Public Hospital, said_ he had made a post-mortem examination of Buchanan’s body, (there was a circular gunshot wound l|in in diameter four inches below and slightly behind the left nipple. An inch above the wound was a small abrasion and bruise,_ and scattered round and within an inch of the lower margin were sixteen small shot punctures. There were no powder stains on the surrounding skin. There was a small surgical incision in front of the right elbow, but no other marks of injury were present. The cavity of the left lung was filled with blood, and the lower lobe was bruised. The lung was not punctured. The wound was found to have penetrated the lower extremity of the left thorax, and entered the abdominal cavity, making a hole in the diaphragm about l£in in diameter. The spleen and the upper kidney were considerably lacerated. The lower portion of the stomach was perforated, and one or two pellets were embedded in the wall. The upper intestine was also perforated. The wound extended downward and backward, and terminated in the soft tissues behind the lumbra vertebrae. From his detailed examination witness was of opinion deceased died from hoemorrhage and shock due to a gunshot wound. He produced some shot taken from the wound and the wad, and fragmented fibres, which came probably from another wad of from deceased’s clothing. . To the Crown Prosecutor, witness thought, from the nature of the injuries, that deceased would be between Oft and 9ft from the gun when he was shot. There was no sign of powder staining on any of deceased’s garments, WIDOW’S EVIDENCE. Eileen Caroline Buchanan, widow of the deceased, said her husband had been on the relief works and they lived at Tomahawk, where they had been about six and a-half or seven months. They were married on July 22, 1931. She had known the accused for some years. She had a son named John, and O’Connor was the father of that child, who was three years and nine months old. She had taken proceedings against the accused with regard to that child, and he had consented to an order adjudging him the father. A maintenance order for the payment of 15s a week was made at the same time. That was in 1928. Accused had made some payments under that order. The child had been boarded since its birth, but was living with witness at her home in Tomahawk on tho night of March 29 and 30. It had been taken from the place where it had been boarded out at Christmas time. Her husband knew the accused, and as far as she knew they were on friendly

terms. She and her husband retired to bed at about 9.40 on the night of March 29. The house consisted of throe rooms built one behind _ the other, and the bedroom was the middle room. That room opened into the front room, and you had to pass through that room to reach the front door, which opened on to the verandah. The son was sleeping in a cot in the front room. After going to bed witness and her husband went to sleep. They were wakened by knocking at the door. Witness woke first, but took no notice of the knocking at first. When her husband woke he put on the light and went to see who it was. When he was getting out of bed her husband called out “ All right,” but she had heard no one call before that. After her husband called out she heard O’Connor call out to her husband, but she forgot what ho said. It was just after midnight by the clock, which she thought was about right. She thought the clock showed ten minutes past 12. Her husband went to the front' door and O’Connor came in. The minute he came in witness could see he was drunk, and she asked what he wanted at that hour of the night. O’Connor asked her husband for a cigarette. He was almost in the bedroom then, and he later came into the bedroom, and witness thought he sat on the side of the bed. Her husband gave him a cigarette and said: “Now you go away home,” and witness thought she added that his wife would be worrying about where he was. Witness was still in bed. She asked O’Connor if he knew what the time was, and she thought he said it was 1 o’clock. Witness asked him where his wife was, and he said she was at home. Ho did not say where he had been. Her husband was making a cigarette, but witness did not see him give it to the accused. Her husband took O’Connor to the front door and told him to go home. He said: “ Now you get away home. It is late.” He added he would hold the door open till O’Connor got to the gate. Accused said: “ Are you putting me out?” The two men were then at the front door, and witness did not think the accused appeared to be angry as he said, it. She did not see if her husband had to help him to the door. She did not know if O’Connor could get to the door by himself or not. She was half asleep. The accused, when going out, said ho wanted to see the boy, but her husband said: “ You go home novv. You can come and see him when you are sober.” He said the boy was asleep. O’Connor showed no anger or ill-feeling towards her husband. When O’Connor had gone her husband returned to bed and went to sleep. Witness did not sleep, and she was disturbed again at about 1 o’clock by leud knocking at the front door. She thought the man was mumbling as well as knocking. Her husband was asleep. The noise wakened the boy, who called out that there was someone knocking at the front door. She then heard O’Connor ask if “ Fin ” was there. The exact words were: “Is Fin there, John?” Her husband had wakened by this time, and he put on the light in the bedroom and went to the door. There was no light in the front room, which had a fitting but no bulb. THE SHOT. When her husband went into the front room nothing was said, but she heard him open the door and heard nothing else till she heard the shot. She did not know at the time that it was a shot, and she jumped out of bed to see what the noise was. Her husband had left her room only a short time, and would have had no more time than to open the door. Witness ran to the door of the bedroom and* saw her husband lying on the floor and O’Connor with the gun. O’Connor was actually standing inside the door near her husband. As witness appeared at the door O’Connor himself and looked at her. It was light enough for her to see him. He had the gun in his hands and he jerked it as he straightened himself. When she saw the gun witness slammed the door and ran out. She did not know where the gun was pointing as she slammed the door. Witness ran for a neighbour—Mr Newton. She did not hear her husband speak after he left the bedroom. Mr Newton went with her to the house, entering through the back door. Her husband was still lying on the floor, but the accused was not there. She did not see him again that night. She and Mr Newton picked up her husband, carried him to the bedroom, and placed him on the bed. She could not say exactly how her husband lay on the floor. She did not look at the clock at that time, but judging from the time that passed between O’Connor’s first and second visits she thought it would be about 1 o’clock. She could not say whether the gun in the accused’s hands was anything like the gun produced. GUN LEFT ON VERANDAH. William James Taber, a storekeeper at Tomahawk, said he had known the accused for three or four years. O’Connor had lived at Tomahawk for about six months. He was disturbed at 0.30 a.m. on March 30 by a knock at the shop door. His wife answered the knocking, O’Connor went to the door and asked for cigarettes. He recognised O’Connor’s voice. O’Connor said he was returning to live in the district, and asked to be served with cigarettes. Mrs Taber refused to serve him at that hour of the night, and after considerable talk accused went away. From O’Connor’s speech, he thought the man had taken drink. He formed the opinion that he was under the influence of liquor. At about 1.30 the accused came running down the hill and bounced on to the verandah. Knocking on the door and the bedroom window, accused, who said _ then that ho was Lew O’Connor, said that he wanted cigarettes. At first witness did not answer him, but when the knocking persisted he jumped out of bed, saying that he would “fix” O’Connor. He told O’Connor through the front window that he would send for the detectives to have him arrested, even if he had to pay for the detectives coming out. O’Connor said: “I want to see you. I’ll wait for you.” O’Connor was standing on the verandah, but all of a sudden something seemed to strike him. He dropped something with a loud crash on the verandah and ran fifteen yards beyond the shop. He then doubled back and headed towards town. A few minutes afterwards Albert Newton arrived on Hie verandah. In consequence of what Newton told him he telephoned the police. Later Newton drew Mrs Taber’s attention to a gun on the verandah. Witness first saw the gun in Newton’s hand. At daylight he found spots of blood on the verandah and door and near the letter box outside.

Jessie Lindsay; Tabor said that O’Connor became noisier on his first visit when she refused to sell cigarettes. She thought O’Connor was drunk by the way he spoke, O’Connor returned at 1.30 o’clock, and she told him to go away. She corroborated her husband’s evidence. His threat to call the detectives could have been heard by accused. O’Connor must have heard it, as he said: “I’ll wait here. I want to see you, Taber.” When her husband said ho was going out, sho said: “You are not going out—the man is drunk.” During the second visit O’Connor was standing at the bedroom door, on which he was continually banging. Albert Nathaniel Newton said his