PICTON MURDER CHARGE

Hawera Star, Volume LII, 23 November 1932, Page 9

PICTON MURDER CHARGE

SECOND . DAY OF TRIAL NEPHEWS GIVE EVIDENCE DOCTORS DESCRIBE INJURIES. THEORIES AS TO CAUSE. (By Telegraph—Press association.) BLENHEIM, Nov. 22.. The trial at the Supreme Court, before His Honour Mr. Justice Blair, of Edward Tarrant, who is charged with the murder, at Picton on November 3, 1931, of an old man named James Flood, was resumed this morning. James Flood, a nephew of deceased, gave evidence regarding deceased’s investments and mode of living. Beneficiaries under the will were himself, two brothers, two sisters and three cousins.

Under cross-examination witness denied that he borrowed money in anticipation of a. legacy under liis uncle’s will. "Witness was questioned closely concerning liis whereabouts at the time of the murder. He denied that he did not get on with his uncle. On the night of the alleged murder witness was on the foreshore till about 8 o’clock. He then returned home with a. friend.-

Two other nephews deposed as to the reluctance of deceased to lend money. Dr. E. IV. Smyth detailed in minute detail the results of an examination ol the body of deceased. He referred to injuries and two neck wounds which could only have been caused by a heavy sharp instrument used with considerable force. He concluded that deceased was struck a violent blow on the back of the head from behind by a left-handed man. The axe produced could have caused the injuries.

Cross-examined, witness said that if the deceased had turned as the blow was struck in right-handed manner it was possible' the injuries could have been, so received.

Dr. Philip Lynch, pathologist, explained that one of his specialties was deducing cause and means of death by post-mortem examination. He detailed at length the results of his conclusions by a post-mortem examination of deceased’s body. The back of the axe would produce the wounds in the head, and the neck wounds would result from a blow from the- axe.