NOT GUILTY.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16559, 25 May 1914, Page 10

NOT GUILTY.

DURHAM STREET TRAGEDY. CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER AGAINST THOMSON. CHIEF WITNESS’S EVIDENCE DISREGARDED. At the Supreme Court on Saturday, before his Honor Mr Justice Denniston, Alexander Thomson was charged with having on February 20 assaulted Hannah Thomson, causing injuries which resulted in her death. There was an alternative count of assault. Mr P. S. K. Macassey appeared for the Crown and Mr J. A. Cassidy for the accused. In opening the case for the Crown, Mr Macassey said that Hannah Thomson was the accused’s mother. She was living with a man named Baxter, with the accused and a little boy. Oil the evening of February 20 Baxter came home and, missing some boot-laces, commenced an argument about them. The accused and Baxter fought. Thomson hit Baxter, and also struck his mother, who fell and was cut on the sjiarp edge of a fender, and bled to death. The chief witness for the Crown was Baxter, who was now seriously ill and could not attend. BAXTER’S DEPOSITIONS.

Counsel then read the depositions of Baxter, who stated that he.had kept the woman Thomson, her two little children, and at tiroes the accused, for two years and a half. On February 20 he came home and found the accused and a Miss Wright at the house. Ho missed ibe boot-iaces and mentioned them to Mrs Thomson, and evidently the accused heard him. He came clown and said, “ I’ll buy you a pair of laces.” Witness told him not to make a fuss about a pair of laces. The accused hit witness .and his mother urged him not to have a row over such a simple thing as a pair of laces. Thomson turned round and hit her in the face. She fell down. She got up and remonstrated with the accused, and he struck her again, and she fell on to the fonder. Witness took her outside, and there Thomson struck her again. Later witness heard talking outside, and he went out into tho yard, where Thomson hit, his mother again, knocking her on to a ease. Witness then noticed blood pouring furiously down her leg, and later, when lie realised tlie serious nature of her injury, be went for medical aid, but when lie returned to the house Mrs Thomson was almost in extremis. Thomson was slightly inebriated. Mr Macassey said that lie felt that it was his duty to say that Baxter’s account was exaggerated, but some important points were corroborated by the little children. When Senior Sergeant Mathieson went into the house, Thomson made a statement, and in it. stated that while he was striking at Baxter his mother got in tho way and received the. blow. Baxter then took her out into the yard.

MEDICAL EVIDENCE. Dr Charles H. Newton said that at 7.20 p.m. on February 20 lie. was summoned to 'niomson’s home in Durham Street. When he arrived he, noticed blood on the footpath and doorstep of tho house. In the scullery he saw Mrs Thomson, who was in extremis and died within a minute of his entrance to the house. With Baxter he carried the body»to another room. She died of loss of blood. Her underclothing was soaked with blood, but ho did not examine the body closely. While he was at the house Baxter turned to Thomson and said: “You’ve killed her,” but the accused made no reply. Thomson told witness that ho had had a dispute with Baxter over bootlaces, and that a scuffle ensued. Thomson said

that ho was chasing Baxter round a table, when ho pushed it towards his mother, who was struck in the groin and knocked down. There were no marks of blows on the woman’s face or head. To Mr Cassidy: Ho was not sure of the actual words used by Thomson, but lie was of tho sense. Mr Cassidy: Didn’t he say he struck the table. Witness: Ho said pushed. Continuing, Dr Newton said that a varicose vein might burst at any moi input. j Dr T. L. Crookc, who examined the body of the deceased woman, said that he found a ruptured varicose vein in the groin. Death was due to hemorrhage. There was a small bruise < n the right' cheek, but otherwise there weie no marks of violence. To Mr Cassidy: The signs of external violence did not suggest that the woman had received several heavy’ blows. A woman rushing about might rupture' the varicose vein. Senior-Sergeant. Mathieson gavo evidence of the statement made by the accused after the affair. He said" that Thomson showed abrasions' on his temple and his knuckles. Baxter had marks too. Nellie Thomson stated that the accused and his mother were always on 1 good terms. EVIDENCE OF YOUNG BROTHER, William Thomson, aged nine years, stated that, tho accused struck at Baxtcr; but his mother received the blow, . which knocked her down on to the fender. Ho did not see any other blow struck by Thomson. Baxter told him to tell the Court that tho accused “gave mummy a clout and knocked her down.” Detective-Sergeant Hunt also gave evidence. ACCUSED IN THE BOX. The accused in evidence stated he was upstairs when he heard bis mother and Baxter having heated words over boot-iaces. Witness went down to the room, and asked Baxter what he was growling ■ about. Baxter replied: “What’s it got to do with,you?” Witness said that he took the laces and offered to buy some. Baxter turned to him and said: “I’ve bad too much of your check.” Witness replied: “You’ll never be anything to me as long as I can prevent it.” Baxter hit at him, and witness struck back at him, but hit a chair. Baxter, hit him in the chest and witness knocked him down. They then .wrestled, and when they separated lie aimed another blow at Baxter. Mrs Thomson stepped in at that moment to separate them, and received the blow, which knocked her down. Baxter took his mother to the backyard and then into the bathroom, where she collapsed. Baxter called out: “She’s bleeding to death.” Witness went to a.‘’’chemist’s and called tho doctor, who came. Shortly afterwards nip mother died and witness informed the police. He did not strike bis mother except on tho one occasion, and the statement by Baxter that he hit nt r afterwards was untrue. His mother was always good to him. By direction of his Honor Baxters evidence was disregarded. Mr Cassidy addressed the jury, urging that Thomson had acted in' selfdefence and therefore was not committing an assault when he accidentally struck his mother. Under the oircr instances it could uot bo termed manslaughter. It was not beyond doubt either that tho fall had caused, the bursting of the varicose vein, which might have burst during the excitement of the quarrel.

His Honor summed up and put to tho jury the issue that it should consider whether or not Thomson could have been convicted of assault on Baxter. The' only direct evidence that could be considered was that of the boy, William, and of the accused. The jury retired for four minutes, and returned with a verdict of not guilty.