SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXVI, Issue 9491, 13 August 1891, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Wednesday, August 12. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Dennistou.) The criminal sittings were resumed at 10 a.m. . ATTEMPTED MURDER. Albert Edward Moss was indicted for having on July 7 wounded his wife, Mary Emma Moss, with intent to murder her. Mr J. C. Martin conducted the case for the Crown. Mr Stringer appeared for the accused. Moss, who looked pale and somewhat haggard, pleaded “ Not guilty ” in an 1 almost inaudible tone. His Honor said that, as the accused was evidently m weak health, he might be seated. , ' > , The accused sat down, and leaned forward against the front of the dock, resting His face on his hands. In opening the case for the Crown, Mr Martin said that the attention of the Jury would be chiefly taken up with the question of the state of the prisoner’s mind when he committed the act. The law presumed every man to be sane until he was proved to be insane, and it would be more convenient for the Crown to deal with the question at once rather than to bring rebutting evidence on it after the evidence for the defence. Mr Martin then recounted the circumstances of the case, which are familiar to the public, and stated that a few days before the assault Moss appropriated certain cheques of his employer and deposited them with the clerk of the R.M. Court, Ashburton, as security for the satisfaction of a judgment which had been obtained against him. Mr Martin called Mary Emma Moss, who was allowed to sib in the body of the Court. She deposed that she was married to her husband in June last, and went to live at Ashburton. They lived happily together. On Thursday, July 2, the bailiffs were put into their house, bat left on the same day. On Friday her husband went to work as usual at Mr Friedlander’a. Oa the Saturday she was ill. Her husband went to his office as usual. On the following Tuesday he got up, and, after lighting the fire, came into the bedroom with a razor open. He said in a joking way “Shall I shave you ?” and rubbed the razor oa her cheek. He went out, and came back. She did not notice anything peculiar in his manner when he came back. He asked the same thing again,and put his left arm round her shoulder. He had the razor in his right hand. She asked him to be quick and get dressed, and go to the office. After this he shaved. After breakfast he went out, but came back and asked her for some money. He went out with her on to the verandah and came back again. She asked him if he had got what he wanted, and what be had in his pocket. His agitated manner made her think he had something. He laughed and said “ Wouldn’t you like to know ?” and ran out of the front door. About half a minute afterwards he came in at the back door and called her. He said he would break some coal, and did so with a hatchet. She was standing near him. He struck her three times on . the head with the hatchet. She raised her arms, and thought she must have ( caughfe his arms somehow. He throw down the hatchet, pulled a razor from his pocket, and cut her on the neck. She got cut on the fingers in trying to save herself. She got away, and as she got out of the kitchen saw him cutting his throat. She had had no quarrel with him. Oa the morning when he assaulted her, after he was dressed, and between the time when he went outside, ha threatened to cut her throat. It was before she asked him what he had m his pocket. He had a razor in his pocket, and put it on the table, saying, “ I’ll cut your throat.” She asked him to put it in the sheath. He said, “ You don’t think I’d do anything to hurt you ?” and pub it in the sheath. The two letters produced were in her husband’s handwriting. She identified the hatchet—an American tomahawk—and the razor produced. To Mr Stringer: She knew her husband from childhood, and came out from England to marry him. He had loft England on account of his health. At Home he was of a very nervous disposition. were perfectly happy in their married Ufa till the bailiffs were put in. That made him very troubled, and he was generally very depressed. , He was naturally of a very , cheerful disposition, bub the trouble completely altered him. He was very changeable in his moods, but was always affectionate towards her. He would say things in a sarcastic way one moment, and the next would ask her if she thought he meant them, and would beg her not to think so. He was restless at night at times. During the two nights previous to the assault he had sudden startings up in his sleep. His face was very white. On the Monday his eyes were staring, but she did nob notice any squinting. When ho rubbed tbo razor on her cheek he made faces. His laugh, when'she asked him.what he bad in his pocket, was a very peculiar laugh. She did not think that he was in sound mental health during the few days. She did not think he knew what ha was doing on the Tuesday. On that morning he would make a threatening grimace at her one moment, and be affectionate the next.

Re-examined by Mr Martin: She did not think that the grimaces were made in fun. They frightened her. She thought he was nob in sound mental health on account of what she had just said. William Salek, assistant to Mr Cambridge, chemist, Ashburton, deposed that Moss came to the shop about June 24 and asked for prussic acid. Witness declined to give it. Mr Cambridge afterwards gave him some “Rough on Rats.” Did not notice anything strange in his manner. To Mr Stringer: Thought Moss asked for prussic acid about a week before Mr Cambridge gave.him the “ Rough oh Rats.” Samuel Salek, pawnbroker, Ashburton, deposed that on July 6 Moaa came to him and asked to see him privately oa business. He said he felt as if ho would go mad if he did not consult with someone. He said he was in a mess, that bailiffs had been in the house; that he had got rid of them by making use of cheques of his employer; -That he could get the cheques back, but the bailiffs would then re-enter; that he could not stand the disgrace; that neither he nor his wife would live to see it. He said be had only been married a month, had brought his wife 14,000 miles, and could not bear to let her know what he was, and that she should never know.

To Mr Stringer: He was not exactly excited; not much more agitated than a man would be under the circumstances.

Andrew Macpherson, shopman at Mr Orr’a ironmongery shop, Ashburton, deposed that about 8.30 a.m. on July 7 Moss came in and asked for a cheap revolver. There was nothing peculiar about him, and witness would have sold him the pistol if he had bad one. Moritz Friedlander, chief clerk to Friedlander Bros, stated that Moss had been employed by the firm for about ten weeks. He did his work properly till a few days before the assault. There were some errors in calculation in his accounts during those few days. To Mr Stringer: Moss was a careful, accurate clerk till witness noticed the errors in his accounts. Witness noticed that he was restless and nervous in his demeanour on Thursday, July 2. Had not noticed any errors before then. Did not notice any alteration in bis facial appearance. Thomas Potter, employed in tbo railway department, Ashburton, stated that on July 4 a railway account of Friedlander Bro?. was not paid. Asked Moss why he had not brought the accounts. Ho said his wife had been ill, and that he had made an excuse to his employers that he wished to see her, and left the office with the cheques in hia pocket, not returning to the office all day; that he had taken the cheques and other papers from his pocket and placed them on his table amongst a lot of old letters, and that the cheques had been swept away into a box, and they could nob find them that day. Witness said he hoped he would find them early on Monday, or he would have to report to Messrs Friedlander. About 9.13 on Monday morning Moss came to the office without the cheques, saying that up to the present he had not fonnd

them. He begged witness not to see Messrs Friedlander that_ day. Witness said he would wait till dinner time. Saw Moss again about 3.15, wheu no conversation took place. Went; and saw Mr Hugo Friedlander in the afternoon, and went to Moss’ house about half-past ten; Moss came to the door. Witness said that he had come to advise him that if anything was wrong he should confess to his employers, who, he thought, would do what they could to assist him. He said, “ Does Mr Hugo know ? ” Witness said “Yes.”

To ‘Mr Stringer ; Moss seamed very much excited when- witness saw him at night. Witness was present at the station oa^the Monday night with Mr Stevenson and Mr Moritz Friedlander. Moss was there. Mr Stevenson said, “The man’s mad ? Did you notice his eye ? ” Witness noticed, that Moss’ eyes were bright and glittering, and his face pale. Mr Stevenson thought soma steps ought to be taken to protect Moss. J. R. Colyer, Clerk to the E.M. Court, Ashburton, deposed that on the Thursday before the assault Moss came in to the Court about the bailiffs being put in hia house. He said he had some money invested in Christchurch, and wished the bailiffs to deal leniently with him. He said his money was not available immediately. The bailiff withdrew on a promise to have the money on Saturday. At a quarter to two on Saturday afternoon Moss came to the Court, and said that his money had not come, but that he had three of his employer’s cheques which he wished to leave with witness for safe keeping until it did come, and as satisfaction for the bailiffs. The cheques were crossed. Witness put them in the safe, and gave no receipt. Suggested to Moss that he should lay the whole matter before his employer. Did not notice, either on the Thursday or Saturday, anything peculiar in his manner. To Mr Stringer ; The cheques had not passed beyond Moss’ control. Witness would have given them to him at any time.

William Henry Brooking, assistant to Mr Brooke, chemist, deposed that he lived next door to Moss. Oa the inorning of July 7, Mrs Moss came out screaming. He went in and found Moss lying on the floor with his throat cut.

Constable C. J. Cleary repeated his evidence given in the Court- below, as did Sergeant M'Grath.

Moss’ letter to Mr Friedlander was read. It was to : the effect that the two missing cheques were at the Resident Magistrate’s Court, where he had left them till his money should turn up. It had not come. He had not used the cheques, and had never taken a cent which did nob belong to him. . f The unaddressed letter, which was evidently intended for his wife, began “My dear Mary.” It stated that Moss had been swindled of Jllßs by a canting humbug, whose, name he would not tell, and!that his dear brave little wife should not live to sea her house sold.

The last witness put in a piece of paper on which Moss had communicated by writing with Mr. Friedlander at the Hospital. Moss, on that, wrote that he was perfectly iibac&t, but had been swindled ; by a man whose name he would not reveal. Mr Friedlander replied that Moss, 1 for, his wife’s sake, ought to reveal the,-man’s name, and asked why ha had not told bis employer of his trouble. Moss answered that he would not reveal the name, and expressed a wish that his wife might not see his misfortune.

Constable W.M'Gill deposed that on July 13, when in the Hospital, Moss said that all that ho remembered of the assault was his wife raising her arms; that he knew nothing more till he was turned over on his back, and he heard some one say “ He’s dead;” that he breathed then to, show that ho was not dead, as he was afraid they might kill him at once. On July 16 ho said he remembered shaving on July 7. Oa July 16 also he said ha remembered Sergeant M'Grath charging him with the offence. He said that one night he was very restless, and burned a lot of papers. To Mr Stringer: Moss always spoke very affectionately of his wife. Dr J. M. Tweed gave evidence as to having had Moss removed to the hospital, ~pnd,A having examined Mrs Moss. He described her injuries, A little touch with the tomahawk produced would have made the wound on the head. ’

To Mr Stringer: Having heard Mrs Moss’ evidence as to Moss’ general conduct, he would say that the symptoms would certainly make him suspect Moss’ sanity. The wholesy mptoma, taken together with hissubsequent act, afforded evidence of insanity. Knew Dr Maudsley’s work on Responsibility in Mental Disease, and Ogston’s Medical Jurisprudence. A man might be a monomaniac—be tempted to commit one act on which he could not reason accurately or correctly, would be insane, in fact, though in regard to other matters ha might be able co reason accurately. There was a form of insanity known as : impulsive insanity,' of which kleptomania, for instance, was probably a branch. Witness was not an expert on insanity.

Mr Stringer read from Maudsley’a work on the symptoms of insanity. The exhibiting of unusual depression, inability to do work,' sleeplessness, bad dreams, would indicate approaching insanity though the patient was free from delusions. la this state a man might have an impulse to commit some desperate act of suicide or homicide. He also read from Ogston’s work to show that madness was preceded by a change of character, and by symptoms similar to those mentioned by Maudsley. The witness said that these were correct descriptions. Mr Stringer read from Eoscoe’s Criminal Evidence, p. 1008, to the effect that to establish a plea of insanity it must be shown that the person committing the act did not know what he was doing, Hia Honor read a further definition from Sir James Stephen, to the effect that the person must be incapable of knowing the nature and quality of his act for a plea of insanity to be sustained. Witness said that he thought that Moss wae capable at the time of the .act of knowing the nature and quality of it, and of knowing that it was wrong. He was perfectly clear of intellect when witness saw him. It v.’as possible that he did not know,and had not the power of controlling, his conduct, hut witness’ opinion wi'.s that he knew the nature and quality of his act, and had the power of controlling his act. The symptoms ha showed previously were indicative of impaired mental health. There was sufficient to prove the possibility of insanity. What bad happened, coupled with witness’ own knowledge of the man, would be sufficient to cause him to inquire strictly as to his sanity, but not to say that he was insane. Ho might not have perfectly recovered from brain fever. The knowledge that Moss had a previous attack of brain fever would make witness think it more probable that Moss was insane. There was a form of meningitis known as tubercular meningitis, to which persons afflicted with consumption were subject. To Mr Martin: Thought it was hardly probable that, if Moss had had a sudden attack of homicidal mania, he would only have inflicted slight wounds oa his wife with the axe and razor produced. Of course one could not bo certain. Moss was a powerful man, and every blow with the tomahawk produced, given by him with force, should have cloven the skull. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, they did not convey the idea to his mind that Moss was insane, but rather the contrary. The homicidal tendency was not always present in those subject to homicidal mania, but they could not resist it when it did come. The facts as to Moss putting the razor to hia wife s cheek and talking about cutting her throat were indicative of meditating the act. Dr J. B. Trevor was not examined by Mr Martin. To Mr Stringer: There was tion of intellectual insanity when Moss was under witness’ care, except on one occasion, whoa ho was under the delusion that he had lost bis foot. Witness tcought that he knew the nature and quauty of the act, but was suffering from of impulsive insanity, had an impulse which he was unable to resist, was, in fact, in a state ■of frenzy. The symptoms. which Moss

was described as exhibiting would certainly give an indication of insanity. To Mr Martin : They would also be indications of annoyance and worry.. It was difficult for witness to understand how wounds so slight could have been done with the tomahawk produced, unless the force of the blows was broken. Thought that Moss never bad the razor at his wife’s throat. A man in a highly nervous state would be irresolute about what he was doing. This concluded the evidence for the Crown.

Mr Stringer opened the case for the defence, and called

Dr B. M. Moorhonse, who deposed that in January last he attended Moss for acute brain trouble, which witness pub down to meningitis. Moss was of a consumptive habit. He was acutely ill for about three weeks, and was convalescent during the last week in January. Witness recommended him to take a month’s entire mental rest, not even to read exciting literature and not to work. Thought that if he did not take that rest he would very likely get a relapse. It would make him very much more liable to he influenced by worry or trouble. Under all the circumstances the probability was that Moss did not know the nature and quality of the act when he committed the assault. His history denoted that very likely ho was in such a state of mind that he could not resist the homicidal impulse. To Mr Martin: Very likely he would he unable to resist any strong impulse. The force of the blows might have been broken by Mrs Moss guarding her head with her arm. There were records of cases in which there was very clear evidence of a man doing the utmost to resist the homicidal impulse, and witness could conceive of a case in which a man may have had the impulse to strike, and yet have sufficient control to partially check himself. It was possible that this might have been the case with Moss. What Moss had said about his troubles, and that his wife should not live to see the place sold, was consistent with insanity and also with worry. Thought that Moss gave way to the desire to attack his wife under irresistible impulse. To Mr Stringer: The homicidal impulse was often resisted for a long time. Agreed with what Ogaton said oa that subject. The incident of Moss stroking his wife’s face with the razor went to show that he had an insane homicidal impulse then, but resisted it. The troubles he was undergoing were very likely to be exciting causes of insanity. William Widdowson deposed that when Moss came to the Colony in 1889 he brought a letter of introduction to witness, and lived with him for some time. He was suffering from consumption. In the latter part of 1890 he became ill, and continued so till the end of January, 1891. He complained bf’.pains in his head, and used to hold it in hia hands. He was always very excitable and nervous, and suffered from sleeplessness a little before and also since the illness. He went to Ashburton about April 25. Afrer going there he complained of suffering in the same way. After his illness he went to work too soon. Witness took him in a cab, and he had to be fetched back. He did not carry out the doctor’s instructions to take repose. James William Malcolmson, shipping clerk to the National Mortgage and Agency Company, deposed that accused was a clerk in the office. He used to complain of very bad headaches, especially after bis illness. He worked in the office till he went to Ashburton. At times he was rather restless.

John Stevenson, stationmaster at Ashburton, deposed that he knew Moss by sight. Saw him on the Monday night when the difficulty respecting Mr Friedlander’s cheques arose. The light fell on Moss’ face, and witness was struck with his appearance; one of his eyes was turned completely in, giving him a most diabolical squint, and bis face was very pale. Witness formed the opinion that there was something the matter with bis brain. After he had gone witness remarked to Mr Potter that the man was evidently off his head, and that something ought to be done for him. Was afraid he would probably commit suicide, and as£ed Mr. Potter to see Mr Friedlander about the man in the mqnnng. Witness mentioned it to at least ’ four people that night. To Mr Martin: Moss, had some conversation with Mr Potter and Mr Friedlander, and spoke rationally, but did not speak to witness. What made witness think him insane was the facial distortion. This concluded the evidence for the defence. Mr Stringer addressed the Jury oa behalf of the accused.

Mr Martin replied. His Honor summed up. The Jury retired at five minutes to 4 p.m. After it had been absent nearly three hours his Honor sent for it, and asked if there was any reasonable prospect of the members agreeing within a reasonable time.

The Foreman replied that there was not. His Honor said that he could not discharge the Jury in a criminal case before the expiration of twelve hours. He would adjourn the Court till half-past eight, in order to allow the Jury a little more time before be decided to lock it up for the night. Meanwhile some refreshment would be supplied to the Jurymen. On the Court resuming at half-past eight o’clock, the Foreman announced that the Jury had not agreed. He said that the members would like to know if the letters found in Moss’ pocket were written before the stationmaster saw him. His Honor, after having read the letters, said that there was no date on them, and nothing absolutely to show when they were written. In one of them Moss spoke of Monday in a manner which might, perhaus, indicate that it was written before* that day, but there was nothing to show accurately when the letters were written. If the jurors agreed on a decision before ten o’clock he would receive it, but if they could not, they would bo taken care of for the night. The Foreman said that he thought that in half an hour the jury would be able to say whether there .was any probability of agreeing. The jury then retired, and returned at 9.20 s p.m,, when the Foreman said there was no probability of the jurors agreeing. ... , His Honor said that in that case he would adjourn the Court to 10 a.m. tomorrow. The jury would be taken care of for the night, and he hoped that some arrangement would be come to in the morning which would prevent the necessity of having to go through the whole of the matter again.

hobbeby with violence. Frederick Porter and James White pleaded “Not guilty” to an indictment charging them with having, on July 19, assaulted William Donnelly and robbed him of £2 2s 6d, Mr J. O. Martin conducted the case for the Crown. The accused were undefended by counsel. Both men exercised their right of challenging jurors freely, so much so that the panel was exhausted when eight jurymen had taken their seats in the box. After some discussion, Mr Martin said that he would pray a tales. His Honor accordingly ordered the doors to be locked. The Registrar then took the names of a number of persons in the Court, and balloted for the balance of the jury, which was made up after two of the selected ones had been challenged. The remaining talesmen were discharged, and the doors opened. The case, for the Crown was that the prosecutor came into town from the country and was drinking. About three in the morning on Sunday, July 19, he met a woman in Manchester street. While he was talking to her the prisoners came up, and Porter asked her if the man had any money on him. She said that she did not know. White then knocked him senseless, and they searched his pockets. White took the money cut of the left hand trousers pocket, and the two men ran off. Donnelly stated that he was sober at the time, and knew that he had £2 2s 6don him then. Ellen Patkereon identified the- accused

as the two men who had assaulted and robbed Donnelly; William Donnelly gave an account of the robbery, and said he was quite certain of the identity of his assailants. Constable Dillon deposed that ho arrested Porter on July 19, and found £2 16s in gold and silver on him. In the evening ho arrested White, and found 9s 9d on him. Sergeant Briggs deposed to the identification of White by the prosecutor. At tea ou the Saturday night he met the two accused in Cashel street. The prisoners called _ Thomas Bullivant, licensee of the Brittania Hotel, who stated that he did nob remember the two accused engaging beds early in the morning of July 19. Frank Smith stated that he did not remember seeing Bullivant on the day when the accused were committed for trial. Andrew Porter deposed that ho was arrested in mistake for Frederick Porter. He was kept till ho proved an alibi. John Wilson deposed that he remembered Andrew Porter being detained on suspicion of having been concerned in robbing Donnelly, that the witness Parkerson told Detective O’Connor that Andrew Porter had committed the robbery. Donnelly, at the police station, said that the night was too dark for him to recognise the men who had robbed him. The prisoner Porter was sworn, and stated that he met White between twelve and one on the night of Saturday, July 18, and went to the Britannia Hotel, where they took beds for the night. They were put into a room, No 8. He did not go away till nine next morning, leaving White in bed. To Mr Martin : Had tea at the Ashburton restaurant on the Saturday evening. About 10 o’clock that night he was walking with a man like White in Cashel street. The prisoner White deposed that he went to the Britannia Hotel with Porter. Between twelve and one o’clock on the night of July 18, they went into a room where some men were playing Yankee grab, and then went to bed. He left about eleven next morning. The accused addressed the Jury. His Honor summed up. The Jury, after a short retirement, found the prisoners “ Guilty.” Mr Martin said that Porter had been convicted of being tbe occupier of a house of ill-fame, of vagrancy, of drunkenness and assaulting the police. White had been several times convicted of drunkenness and vagrancy. His Honor sentenced each prisoner to two years’ imprisonment with hard labour. The Court adjourned to 10 a.m, tomorrow (Wednesday).