COLSTON’S TRIAL

Greymouth Evening Star, 27 February 1931, Page 7

COLSTON’S TRIAL

EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE SEQUEL TO SPREE [PEB PBESS ASSOCIATION.] HAMILTON, February 26. The trial of Charles Colston, 38, for the alleged murder of Mrs Anderson at National Park on January 6, was continued this afternoon. Constable N. E. Parker, of Taum arunui, said that he heard Sergeant Singer ask the prisoner on the National Park station, “Are you Colston?” Prisoner nodded, and replied, Yes. lhe Sergeant told Colston that he would have to detain him. Shortly afterwards, witness, Sergeant Singer, and the two boys, Tolley and Storr, went out to the farm. They looked for the gun but could not find it. They found the ’fore-end of the gun, however, outside the house. On the following morning he found an empty cartridge case, near where he had picked up the fore-end of the gun. Answering Mr. Dickson, witness said that apparently there had been no attempt to conceal the empty cartridge case, or the fore-end of the gun. The case was, however, not easily seen. His Honor: How far from the window were the fore-end and the empty cartridge?—The fore-end /was about seven feet, and the empty case nine feet away.

Sergeant Singer detailed his interview with Colston on the National Park Station. He (witness) asked* him if he knew why he was being detained. Colston answered “Yes!” When witness inspected the body of deceased, there were no signs of burning or powder on the face. On the outside door of Mrs Anderson’s room there were marks as if made' by the prisoner. In opening the case for the defence, Mr Dickson said that the whole of the evidence had been circumstantial. Unless the evidence of a child of four had to be regarded, the Crown case must be very frail indeed. It had to depend for. the only direct evidence on the. evidence of an infant. It was an audacity to bring such evidence forward.* Colston was a returned soldier, broken by war, and rarely affected by drink. Counsel intended to show that, that, in a drunken condition, Colston had chased Phyllis with a gun, and later had fired at a car; also that Mrs. Anderson took the gun into her room,' and Mrs Tolley followed her in, and that they struggled for its possession. He intended to show that Colston entered and endeavoured to separate ttyem, that Mrs Anderson had hold of the barrel, and Mrs Tolley,and Colston held the butt of the rifle, when Mrs Anderson’s hand slipped <pff the barrel, and she stu&bled back, when the gun went off.

Mrs Tolley, in evidence, described the drinking party on the Saturday night. She ;: said that Charlie was “stunned,” and had to be put to bed. Further drinking took place the following night. Colston went to bed at 2.30 that night, very drunk. She described an argument between herself and Mrs Anderson and a subsequent struggle for the gun. She said that Colston had tried to separate them when . Mrs ’ Anderson fell, and the gun accidentally exploded. Asked who pulled the trigger, she said: “I don’t know. It might have been Colston or me.”

ADDRESS TO JURY. HAMILTON, Febrary 27. The trial of Charles Colston was continued to-day.

Mrs Tolley continued her evidence, and explained the damaged astragal of the window as a result of Colstdn shooting at. a quail outside the window.

William Henri Hazard, gun expert, expressed an opinion that 1 the shot pattern on deceased’s face was produced by a direct uninterrupted shot. This concluded the defence. Mr Dickson was still addressing the jury at the luncheon adjournment.