NAPIER MURDER TRIAL

Greymouth Evening Star, 20 February 1945, Page 2

NAPIER MURDER TRIAL

ACCUSED’S MENTAL CONDITION NAPIER,. February 19. The trial of Martin James Eyles, a watersider, on two charges of murder, three charges of attempted murder, and two of discharging a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, opened in the Supreme Court to-day before Mr. Justice Finlay. Mr. L. W. Willis was the Crown Prosecutor, and Mr. H. W. Dowling appeared for the defence. Evidence for the Crown followed the lines of the Lower Court hearing- 1 •Cross-examined by Mr. Dowling, Sergeant R. Audley said the accused had his hands above his head, and had halted when the senior-sergeant called out to him. He did not Think accused was in a dazed condition, and was unaware of what was happening. Accused was under the influence of liquor; but was not sufficiently drunk to warrant his arrest for drunkenness. Constable S. J. Svenson said he heard five shots fired. Accused had pointed a revolver at him, but had not fired. Later at the Napier Hospital accused had fainted, and was unconscious for a few minutes on the floor. Dr. D. A. C. Will said he had gathered the impression that the accused was suffering from the effects of alcohol. When witness went to the police station he had not known what he was wanted for, and drunkenness had not been mentioned. The impression of accused’s condition had remained with him.

Questions concerning the term “mentally drunk” were asked _ at length by Mr. Dowling of medical witnesses. Mr. Dowling asked whether a man drinking heavily for the last 20 years, at the rate of 20 to 30 handles of beer,.a day—an amount increased two or three days before the shooting—was likely to have his mind seriously affected. Dr. Will admitted that it would cause deterioration of the mental faculties. He agreed that the man might suffer alcoholic delusions, and might even be approximating delirium tremens. Dr. J. J. Foley, medical superintendent of the hospital, said accused was flushed and agitated when taken to hospital, but spoke rationally and clearly. When he learned that he was not being admitted to hospital, the accused screwed down on the floor. The accused did not change colour. The witness did not believe that the accused fainted, as there was no condition resembling a faint.

James Forne, a watersider, gave evidence regarding accused’s drinking, and added that Eyles was known as “Bromide Bill” among his friends, through a habit of taking a drug. Cross-examined by Mr. Dowling, the witness said he knew Eyles was making alcohol at home. Mr. Dowling: Did you ever try it? Witness: No. I did not like it. His Honor: Was it home brew? Witness: You would call it “plum plonk.” (Laughter). Mr. Dowling: Did you know if he had made some from fermented jam? Witness: So he told me. His Honor: Did you know if it was brewed or distilled? Witness said it was accused’s own secret. The hearing was adjourned.

MEDICAL WITNESS ILL

NAPIER, February 20

It was announced at the Supreme Court trial of Martin James Eyles, on double murder charges, that Dr. Couston, Acting-Medical Superintendent of the Porirua Mental Hospital, one of the principal witnesses for the Crown, entered the Napier Hospital yesterday morning for an appendicitis operation. It is understood his written statement will serve as evidence, in lieu of his appearance. Continuing the Crown evidence Philip Aubrey McCabie, a barman said that at the time of the shooting Eyles did not look wild or annoyed. After the shooting, Eyles went very white. Cross-examined, witness said he had addressed Eyles, when he entered the bar, as “Mr Churchill,” due to his sturdy figure, dress, and nis big cigar. He dicl not think accused was drinking at a heavier rate than usual over the holiday period. Thomas Roger described how he was hit in the right arm by a bullet which went through Swain. Nothing had happened to provoke Eyles. Questioned as to accused’s insobriety on the day of the shooting, witness replied. Who am I to judge? Dr. Allan Berry, accused’s doctor, said that if a man was proved to have been a consistently heavy drinker over a number of years, he would suffer degeneration of the brain. He believed that a man complaining of seeing bright, flashing lights in the head, loss of memory and hearing voices and footsteps when there were none was suffering from alcoholic amnesia, which was forgetfulness, over a period of time, of what had happened. Such person would do and say things of which afterwards he had no recollection. There were occasions known as alcoholic psychosis, meaning abnormality of conduct and when one could imagine anything. The doctor added that a man suffering from alcoholic psychosis would be morally and legally responsible for what he was doing, because he could have the understanding of right and wrong. That would persist up to a point where he was suffering from delusions, where he could be said to be suffering from temporary insanity. Witness said a man could shoot and then forget it, but he could not sav if being in a state of amnesia, a man could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. To a question by Mr. Dowlmg, Senior-Sergeant Forsythe said he believed Eyles, when arrested, was suffering from the effects of alcohol, and was in a dazed condition in the cell. Witness noticed Eyles’ eyes were glassy on the way to the police station. Eyles never spoke, being m a morose condition.