NAPIER SHOOTING

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 21633, 9 February 1945, Page 4

NAPIER SHOOTING

MURDER CHARGE DEATH OF MAN AND BOY LOWER COURT HEARING (P.A.) NAPIER, Feb. 9. Lower-court proceedings against Martin ,James Eyles, a wharf labourer, charged with the murder at Napier on December 2ft of Charles Edmund Swain, a barman-porter, and John Barry Bertram Howe, a 14-year-old boy of Palmerston North, commenced vesterdav before Mr. J. Miller .S.M. The accused was also charged with the attempted murder of Thomas Rogers, aged (14. Detective-Sergeant A. McKenzie and Detective A. Reid, and with having discharged a missile loaded with destructive material, with intent to do grievous bodily harm to Thelma Alcock, aged 28. and H. J. Kearney, aged 84, a retired journalist, a resident of Karori. The prosecutor is Mr. T. W. Wills, and the accused is represented by Mr. Tf. W. Dowling. All the incidents culminating in the charges preferred against the accused look place on December 28, preceding the New Year and at the height of the holiday season, when in mid-after-noon the streets were .lined with visitors and pedestrians. The scene of ilie shooting was at the Caledonian Hotel and in the vicinity of the Napier Post Office. Tn this —quite one of the most sensational and tragic happenings at Napier—two lives were lost, tlie victims being Charles Edmund Swain, barman-porter, and a schoolboy, John Barry Bertram Howe, a visitor. Evidence by Police Officers

Police-Sergeant Robert Audley said that on the date in question he saw a number of civilians running in a southerly direction along Hastings street, and heard a volley fired from what he thought was a rifle. He saw a man retreating down Vautier street, and saw 'Senior-Sergeant Forsythe and Constables Nathan and Rippin in pursuit. He heard the senior-sergeant call out: “Put that gun down!” He saw this man halt, and extend his arms above his head. Witness then described his entering the Caledonian Hotel from the Dickens street entrance, when he saw the body of Swain. The body was lying face downwards in a pool of blood, and on examining it he found life extinct. Witness gave evidence of finding a spent bullet at a distance of 4ft. from the deceased’s head. Constable Stanley James Swenson, on duty at the time of the happenings, said he heard a volley of five shots fired. On looking down Hastings street lie saw a woman beckoning and running towards him. He ran down to the Hastings and Dickens streets intersection, and there he saw the ■body of a boy lying a few feet out from the curb and parallel to it A bicycle was lying near the boy’s feet. On entering the Hastings street entrance to the Caledonian Hotel, he noticed in the passage way the body of a man lying face downwards. Witness recognised the body as that of Swain.

On coming out of the hotel and looking down the street he saw the accused. He levelled a pistol at witness but did not fire. Witness ducked into a recess in the building, realising that the position was hopeless on Iris own. He rang from the post office for assistance. “How Many Did I Kill?”

The witness’ further evidence concerned the remarks made by accused in art ambulance on the way to hospital. witness and Constable Rippin having accompanied him there. The accused said: "Well, how many did I kill?” To this witness and tiro other constable made no reply. “I wanted to go to the war and get behind a machine-gun. but the - wouldn’t let me go. Well, I have done it now!" were other words described as used by the accused. At the hospital, accused had asked who was the who* had fired "that gat” to wound him. When asked by a doctor if ho (accused) had any other wounds, accused had replied: “That is your job to find out." Dr. D. A. C. Will, who was called to the police iistation at 4.45 p.m. on December 29, said he examined the accused. This disclosed two wounds near the groin. Accused said he did not want to be examined, and remarked that he wanted to die. lie made a further remark to the effect that the only reason "we wanted to keep him alive was so that he could be hanged.” The witness’ impression was that the accused was suffering from the effects of alcohol. His thick speech, his resistance to examination, and his remarks about dying and hanging creating this impression. To Mr. Dowling, witness denied that there was anything in the look of the accused’s eyes to indicate his condition. To a certain extent witness was of the opinion that the accused, when examined, was under the influence of liquor. Dr. A. C. B. Biggs gave evidence of having examined the accused at Napier gaol. The accused appeared to be perfectly normal, and when seen two or three days later also appeared perfectly normal, he being quiet and his behaviour and speech normal altogether. Accused’s Behaviour! At Hospital Dr. James Joseph Foley, medical superintendent of the Napier Public Hospital, stated that the accused was brought to him for examination. The accused stated he wished to come into hospital for treatment to his injuries. The witness offered to put on a suspensory bandage, but the accused said that as he was not coming into hospital he refused to have anything done: He said he was in for a raw deal with the police and when he saw that the witness was not going to admit him to hospital he threw himself backwards on to the floor. He would have been on the iloor for about five minutes. He was not pale and did not faint. He really screwed himself down on to the floor. Apart from being agitated, the accused answered questions normally. Dr. G. E. Waterworth, who assisted in the operation on Thelma Alcock. said that the bullet had emerged from the wound and had been found in the clothing while the operation was being performed. In his opinion the cause of Swain’s death was a bullet wound, the bullet having traversed the heart and lungs. The witness said that the cause of Howe’s death was. a gunshot vvounci of the skull, witli laceration of the brain and fatal damage to vital centres of the brain. Joseph Jeffares, excavator driver, at one time owner of a Luger pistol (produced in court), said that the pistol was one ho registered in 1921. The witness detailed a trip to Dannevirke following the Napier earthquake in 1931. When he returned to his house about a week later he was unable to find the pistol. At the end of the following year he reported the loss of it to the police, and it was not until January 3 of this year, when he was shown the pistol by the police, that lie had scon the pistol. He did not know the accused, who had no authority to have the pistol in his possession. “The Usual Drinking” James Forne, waterside worker, stated that he had known the accused for 15 years. On entering the public bar on the morning of Friday, December 29 last, he saw that the accused was in the bar on his own. Mr, Willi':: What was he doing?

The witness: The usual, drinking. Proceeding, (he witness said that lie was standing close to the accused, to whom he spoke. A friend from Wellington, Jack Pedersen, came in. The witness would say that the accused was sober or near enough to sober. When tlie witness left the hotel tiro accused appeared to be just rational, and not in a bad temper at all events. To Mr. Dowling, the witness denied that the accused on the waterfront was commonly known as “Bromide Eyles." This term was used only among an intimate few. The witness denied that Eyles had ever been known to put anything in his liquor. The reason the accused had obtained this nickname was his practice of carrying a phial of bromide as a nerve steadier in case lie was ill after a night-before. The witness had known the accused to take bromide only on one occasion, it would u> correct to say that the accused had liquor every day and in fairly substantial quantities. This was so over a period of years. Re-examined, the witness staled that he had seen the accused drunk pretty often and at varying times of the day. He had been drunk on several occasions in the three months preceding the happenings causing the present proceedings. “He gets very erratic, a bit narked, and is a domineering sort of chap.' was the witness' observation when he was asked to describe the accused's mood during drinking bouts. The Witness added that the accused talked irrationally on these drinking occasions, but not to the knowledge of the witness had tile accused ever threatened anybody. He did not know that the accused had a pistol in his possession. Shots In Bar Philip Aubrey McCabe, barman, said that the accused was in the habit of calling at the hotel daily, the accused being a beer drinker and consuming from six to eight handies at a visit. The witness had not seen the accused drunk, the accused mostly drinking by himself. His demeanour was quiet in the bar, and the witness had not seen the accused in an aggressive mood. On the morning of December 29 the accused had drunk about nine handles of beer. His condition was quite all right when the witness went off duty for lunch. When lie came in during the afternoon the accused ordered a gin. paying with a 10s note and leaving the change on the counter. He asked the last witness to have a drink. The accused had one and a half drinks, the accused saying that the last drink was not a full measure. The witness replied that there was no more-gin in the hotel, the accused taking the explanation quite well. The accused then consumed beer, the last witness joining him. Before the latter left, the accused ordered a second beer and stood there drinking it oh his own. Swain then entered the bar from the passage way and said “Good afternoon” to the accused, addressing nim as Mr. Eyles. Eyles, tlie witness continued, was standing about 4ft. to the left of Swain, Eyles declining to reply. A man called Rogers was standing on Swain’s right and another man unknown to the witness was standing further to the right. Eyles then drew the gun and shot Swain, who immediately reeled and, turning right, fell in the doorway of the bar. The witness said he thought Rogers made a grab at Swain and the witness presumed that when Rogers saw the gun he made off. The accused then fanned the gun round the bar, later pointing the gun towards the witness.

Mr. Willis: What did you do when you were on the spot like this? The witness: I sweated.

Mr. Willis: Did you make any remark?—Yes, I said, “For sake don’t shoot, Martin.” Mr. Willis: Did the accused say anything when yOu spoke like that?— He said “You are my friend.’’

The witness said that the accused then walked into the foyer. Mr. Willis: And when he got there what did you do?—I had a long beer.

The witness added that he heard a second shot fired. There did not appear to be any reason for the shooting. at the time of which happening the accused appeared to be sober. After the shooting Eyles went very, very white.

Witnessed tlie Shooting

.1 nek Frederick Neill, contractor, Port Ahuriri, stated that he was in the hotel on tile afternoon ol' December 29. There were three men in the bar. One had a pistol in his hand and fired it at a man in a white coat. Mr. Willis: What did you do the'n? The witness: I took off.

The witness outlined how he wen’ into the post office. He heard further shots and came out of the post office. He saw a boy lying in the street, and also saw the man with the revolver fire shots up Hastings street. To Mr. Dowling, the witness stated that it appeared that the man was not firing at anybody in particular; he was just firing wildly. Thomas Rogers, retired, married, of Napier, stated that on Friday. December 29, he went into the public bar of the hotel shortly after 3 p.m. - The accused, whom witness knew fairly well, was in the bar and the witness was standing about Bft. on the accused’s right. Swain came into the bar and stood between the witness and the accused, and Swain put a tray on to the bar and then things happened. The witness said he felt something was on hand. He looked and saw Eyles pointing a pistol at Swain. A bullet, which went through Swain, hit the witness in the hand and dropped at his feet. Nothing had happened in the bar to provoke Eyles. The accused did not appear to be intoxicated. The witness left the bar and as he left he felt a shot in the arm and heard a report. Mr. Dowling: You and Eyles had never had any rows? There was no reason why he should have shot you?

The witness: No. There was no reason whatever. Licensee’s Evidence

The licensee of the Caledonian Hotel. Napier, William James Kyle, stated that as a result of something told him by Rogers he went into the public bar, where he saw Swain lying on the floor. He also saw Eyles standing in the bar with a gun in his hand. The witness went to go to tlie effic'? to ’phone the police. As the witness went towards the office he heard a shot. He turned around and saw Eyles. with the revolver in his hand, standing in the doorway. To witness it seemed that the bullet went through Rogers' arm, through a glass panel of the door, and lodged in Kearney’s shoulder.

To Mr. Dowling, the witness stated his opinion that the accused was a heavy drinker. The witness knew that Eyles and Swain were friends The witness believed that Eyles was in the habit of lending Swain money from time to time to help him over difficulties. Swain had been ill and Kyles had taken fruit to Swain’s room on one occasion. The witness knew of no reason, had Eyles been a normal, sane man, why he should have shot his best friend. He also know no reason why he should have shot Rogers.

Re-examined by Mr. Willis, the witness said he had never really seen Eyles c runk Eyles might have eight or 10 handles of beer or more but they never made him, in his opinion, drunk.

(Proceeding)