WHIROKINO TRAGEDY

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIII, Issue 63, 10 February 1933, Page 8

WHIROKINO TRAGEDY

CHARGE OF MURDER. The hearing was resumed in the Supreme Court before His Honour Mr Justice MacGregor, yesterday afternoon. of the. charge against Allen Roy Easton of the murder of his brother, John Spencer Seabury Easton, at Whirokino on November 22 last. Mr P. S. Macassev conducted the case for the Crown and Messrs Cooper and Bergin appeared for accused. Further, cross-examined, Sydney Taiaroa ■Tisdall, gunsmith, of Wellington, produced patterns to indicate the respective spread and concentration of shot fired from a distance of ten yards. The direction of the discharge was from between the top and second rail of the fenco at the farm. The gun produced would eject the empty cartridge five or six feet. George D. Windeler gave evidence that on No.vember 22 last lie went to Mr Easton’s place to finish milking the cows. He saw the body of Jack Easton lying just outside the cowyard. With R. Winiata, he milked the remainder of the cows, and later looked around for Roy Easton. Witness found the gun about 30 paces from the cowshed. He thereupon notified Constable Grainger. Constable J. Bagrie stated that with Constable Grainger, at 6.30 p.m. on November 22 last, he proceeded to the farm. Eh route he met Dr. Thomson, who handed him an empty cartridge. On arrival witness saw the body of John Easton lying outside the cowyard gate. The gun was reported to have been found lying 30 paces from the cowshed, and at the hack of it. Witness said there were numbers of pellet holes in deceased’s clothing. Following upon a message, witness proceeded to the farm again at 7 p.m. on November 23, when he learned that accused had been brought home and was in bed. Witness remained at tho farm and at 4 o.m. next day went into accused’s room and asked him how lie felt. Accused said he was all right and made no reference to the case. Later, accused was charged at Levin with the murder of his brother, but he made no remark whatsoever. Constable W. J. Grainger, formerly stationed at Levin, said he accompanied Constable Bagrie to the farm on the evening of November 22. A search was made and 30 paces to the rear of the cowshed a shotgun was found by Windeler. It was not disturbed until taken charge of later on by Detective Quirke. Witness escorted accused to Wellington later, and on the way accused said “Quirke is an old fool. He thinks I shot my brother, but I did not mean to hurt him.’’ Senior-Detective T. Quirke stated that he arrived at Richard Easton’s farm at 10.30 p.m. on November 22 last and saw the body of John Easton. Constable Bagrie handed him a cartridge case and Constable Grainger had shown him where the gun was. Both were next day handed to Detective Barling to be taken to Wellington for examination. On November 24 witness went to Levin and examined deceased’s clothing for pellet holes. Witness added that altogether there were about sixty pellet marks in deceased’s clothes. There were also marks and holes in a milking tin. Tests had been made of the position in which deceased would be milking. With the cow in the bail its body just reached the end of the partition. There was an injury in the udder and a pellet must have passed through the gap in the partition. There were 73 pellet marks in a post witness examined. The shot was evidently close and pieces of wood had been sheared off. For four or five inches the right edge of the post had bgen cut dean away. The bottom shot on the post was 17 inches from the floor of the cowshed and the marks continued on to a height of 30f inches. Nine pellets in a rear post started 154 inches from the floor and rose to a height of 26J inches. Accused was oft 9Jin in height in his boots. This concluded the case for the Crown.

• CASE FOR DEFENCE. Opening the case foi* the defence, Mr Cuoper intimated that he proposed to call evidence. He said it had been suggested that accused got a gun and murdered his brother in cold blood because he had shaken him. From the whole of the circumstances it was unbelievable and almost impossible. The boys had shared a room since childhood, and although they had occasional little disputes, that was natural in any family. Accused had never shown any signs of violent temper, and there had never been any fear of his access to firearms. Yet from the circumstances of the case the Crown asked the jury to infer that murder, and nothing else, _ had been committed. It was impossible not to have a deep sympathy with the father in the dreadful position in which he found himself. One of his sons was dead and he was called as the chief witness for the Crown against the other. The first theory of the Crown, that accused shot his brother in a fit of anger, must, he submitted, fall flat. Too much time had elapsed before the shot was fired. There were many dangerous weapons in the shed, and if accused had any disposition to such a frightful passion as was suggested he ■would have attacked his brother there and then. There was no suggestion that there was any insanity in the mind of accused, and the murder of a brother was a terrible allegation. There was nothing to show that accused nursed resentment towards his brother, with whom he had been friendly all his life. Accused denied that he fired the gun, and could not explain how it went off. The facts were entirely consistent with the accidental discharge of the gun, and entirely inconsistent with accused having deliberately fired it at his brother. Accused had decided to use up the last cartridge in shooting for sport before he left for Foxton. He did not'take a rifle, although he could shoot a running deer. Accused went to the fence to speak to his father, slipped or tripped, and the gun went off accidentally. Accused became panicstricken in fear of his father, and fled. EVIDENCE OF ACCUSED.

Accused, Allen Roy Easton, gave evidence that prior to the family proceeding to the farm they had all lived with his grandmother in Foxton. She had been particularly good to accused and stood between him and trouble on many occasions, saving him from thrashings by his father. It was customary for accused to go rabbit shooting at about 6 p.m. He and his brother had occasional rows, but soon made it up again. There was nothing extraordinary in his brother giving him a shaking, as he had treated him as severely before. Accused had never done his brother any injury and had often done his work to let him get away to football. Accused offered to lend his brother, the month before his death, money to buy an engagement I 'while milking on the night of November 22 accused told his brother he wanted to go shooting and that he ought to milk another cow. Hrs brother, witness continued, grabbed hold of him and shook him, but desisted when his father called out and got another cow in. Accused went on milking and .did not get off his seat until he finished the cow, and. then took the tin into the separator room He went to the house ami was not upset or angry with his brother. Accused went inside the house, washed his hands and the shotgun and the one cartridge left. He could

just as easily have taken a rifle. He went down by the usual route to the cowshed and put tho cartridge into the gun when he had climbed through the first fence. He approached_ the cow-bail and did not remember noticing anything near the rail fence,' to which he was going, as usual, to call out to his father that he was going shooting. “I was walking up to the fence and got fairly close, when I slipped on something and the gun went off,” added accused. “I saw my _ brother lurch sideways, and became frightened that lie' might be severely hurt, so I ran away.” Counsel: Can you account for the gun going off?—No. You cannot explain?—No. Can you say on what you slipped?— No.

Accused said he was carrying the gun in one hand as he walked up to the fence. He then held it in both hands, or it would have been hanging through tile fenco. Just then, as lie was about to call out to his father, lie slipped and the gun wont off. He did not know how the empty shell got out or the gun, which he dropped when he ran away towards the coast. He did not return home that night as he was frightened of his father. He knew Jack was hurt, but had no idea that he had been killed. Next day he was making for his grandmother’s place at Foxton, but did not know the police were after him. He did not keep to the main road, as it was shorter across country. He was making for his grandmother’s place as he was hungry and he knew she would protect him from his father. When his father found him lie was tired and “done up.” Re-examined, witness said his brother did not bully him or give lnm hidings.. His brother never caught him by the throat with both hands, but caught him firmly by the shoulders in the shed and shook him hard.- (Jn November 22 accused was slightly annoyed but did not remember crying. He went to tell his father he was going shooting and to wait for him before going to Foxton. The Crown solicitor: Dnl not youi father oil the previous Sunday tell you not to use the last cartridge. Yes, but it was mine. His Honour: Why particularly did you take the cartridge ?—Because 1 wanted to shoot a rabbit to take to mj grandmother. The Crown solicitor: Why did you cock the gun?—l never said I did. But it must have been cocked to go off o—l 0 —I do not remember whether I cocked it or not. A jar would make it go off. „ , , . How did you fall ? —I do not know how I slipped or fell. Can you suggest how the gun went off?—No, I cannot. DEMONSTRATION TO JURY.

Accused gave a demonstration to the jury of "how he approached the fence with the gun in his hand. The Crown solicitor: Can you explain how the cartridge shell got out of the gun?—No, I cannot. Ido not remember doing anything to the gun after it went off. You cannot remember how you slipped or how the the gun was fired? —lt was a great shock to me to see Jack hit. I suggest to you that if this gun went off accidentally tlie first thing you would do would be to go and see if he was hurt, but you did not, did you?—No. You never told your father when you were going back to the car next day that it was an accident ?—No. Why did you not tell your father and mother that it was a terrible accident?—l did say it was an accident when I got home. Further exnmined, accused said lie did not remember telling the constable lie did not mean to hurt his brother. He had suggested, however, that anyone who thought he deliberately shot his brother was a fool. When did von first say it was an accident.?—When Mr Bergin first came into the case. Counsel for accused : And when did Mr Bergin come into the case?— Shortly after the accident. Accused said when lie reached home lie immediately' went to his vnothei s bedroom and Mr Bergin arrived in less than an hour. He was not sure whether his mother was present when he said it was an accident. Nobody told accused. Constable Bagrie was in the house. Witness added that he may have cocked the gun after he put the cartridge in it. t i His Honour: When you slipped close to the fence did you let go the gun with either hand ? —I do not think ? °His Honour: You hung on to the gun with both hands?—Yes. Did vou ever slip like that beloie when out shooting ?—No. William Johnston Anderson, an employee of the Post and Telegraph Departmeiit at Foxton, gave evidence that lie was in the Easton home at 8 o’clock on the evening of the tragedy. He went again early the following evening and saw a piece of sack partly embedded in the earth near the railing of the fence. This concluded the evidence for the defence, and proceedings were adjourned until 10.15 a.m. to-day, His Honour directing that the jury would have to remain together in the meantime.

TO-DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. ADDRESSES TO JURY. With the evidence completed, counsel addressed the jury when the hearing of the charge was resumed this morning. Mr Cooper, counsel for accused, stated that the jury had to be satisfied bovond doubt that the gun was deliberately fired if they were to bring in a verdict of guilty. If they were to accept the truthful evidence of the father insofar as his statements were against accused, they had equally to accept the statements in his favour. Accused was hard-working, thrifty, and generous, and had never shown any signs of violent rage. He was not quarrelsome, did kindly acts for his brother, and slept in the same room. Then the fateful day arrived. There was a slight dispute in the cowshed. The whole story of the trouble was that Jack Easton merely shook accused, and the Crown suggested that such a small thing produced not a hot, passionate rage, but a cold, revengeful fury. There were dangerous implements in the shed and it was unbelievable that accused went in a temper to get a gun to murder his brother. Ten minutes elapsed at least after accused, who, it was suggested, had such a fiendish, frightful temper, quietly finished milking his cow. and went without a word of ill-temper or sign of anger. Any resentment at his brother’s action was gone before he finished his cow. The whole of the Crown case rested on theory. They asked the jury to decide that accused with malice aforethought, killed his brother. The defence was positive evidence of an accident. There was nothing in accused’s demeanour but the truthful statements of a young boy who had given liis evidence frankly and stood up to cross-examination. His j evidence was uncontradicted. Criticising the gun expert’s evidence, counsel pointed out that the tests had not been made: at the spot in liis assumption "of the angle, distance and line of fire. At counsel’s request, acnnsed cave a demonstration to the iourv Counsel said that with the gun at a height of four feet, pointed, in the

direction which had been suggested by the Crown, accused would have had to crouch to fire it. It was quite easy | for the muzzle of the gun to go up, down or forward if accused slipped. Had he wanted to lie, he could have j offered explanations for tho shot, but | accused said lie could not account for | the discharge of the gun. The very i baldness of the statement was convinc- ! ing evidence of its truth. Because of | fear of his father, accused did not at (once say it was an accident. Counsel i expressed appreciation of tho treatment accused received at the hands of the police, especially Constable Bagrie. Accused’s statement that, “I did not mean to hurt my brother,” could he construed into the moaning that accused did not want to do him any harm. Accused slipped or tripped, the gun jerked forward, and discharged. By touching the rail it would break 'open and eject the cartridge shell. | The Crown Solicitor (Mr P. S. Macassey) said there were three alterna- | tive possible verdicts in the case. ’J lie first was one of murder, the second •of manslaughter and the third not . guilty on the grounds that the gun was ! accidentally discharged. Accused was the only one who could explain its discharge and should be able to give a reasonable and truthful explanation. The theory of accident was never advanced until the case entered Court at this trial. Why should accused go shooting when there were still six cows to milk, and without a word to his father then? Every circumstance in the case, counsel suggested, pointed to the fact that the gun had deliberately been fired at Jack. All accused’s actions and statements were consistent with guilt'. Tho evidence of the gun expert all went to show that the gun was fired at the spot where Jack was sitting. Accused could easily crouch to fire the gun between tho railings of the fence. Accused hod said both hands were on tho gun when he slipped. He did not say it struck anything, so that one hand must have been on the trigger. Unless tho gun was opened, the cartridge could not have been ejected. Accused could not explain that, and the gun expert said the cartridge was found where he would expect it. The first .action of accused after the accidental discharge of a gun would be to go to his brother, instead of running away. If there had been an accident, was there any need, when accused reached home, to call in a solicitor to advise and prepare a defence? Was the statement to a constable, “I did not mean to hurt him,” consistent with the theory of accident? There was not a tittle of evidence that the gun received a jar.

Counsel further contended that even if act-used had pointed the gun at Jack with the intention of frightening him, and it went off, he would be guilty of manslaughter. The Crown, however, suggested that the case was one of deliberate shooting. All the actions of accused were, submitted counsel inconsistent with his innocence and the accidental discharge of the gun. JUDGE SUMS UP. His Honour, in summing up, stated that the case was indeed a sad and painful one, but however that might be, he was certain the jury would do their duty and return a verdict i;i accordance with the evidence, uninfluenced by sympathy for accused’s relatives. There were some indisputable facts. It was clear that the gun was discharged while held by accused, either accidentally or on purpose. Further, when discharged, it was pointing in a direct line witli where accused was sitting. The Crimes Act, His Honour pointed out, defined that culpable homicide amounted to murder it the offender meant to cause the death of the person killed by the offender; or it the offender meant to cause bodily injury known to the offender to be likely to cause death, whether he was reckless in what he did or not. Manslaughter was culpable homicide which did riot amount to murder. Culpable homicide might be reduced to manslaughter if the act was done in a sudden passion caused by strong provocation. Provocation was considered to exist where something was done to so deprive a person of self-control that lie acted upon it before his passion was cooled. Those were questions of fact to be determined by the jury in this case. There was a middle course to be considered between the two extremes. It was stated that the gun was accidentally discharged and it was a marvellous coincidence that the shot should have found deceased’s heart. His Honour reviewed the evidence, stating that that of the accused was entirely directed to convince the jury of accident. If they were satisfied he was telling the truth they should find him not guilty. Unless they could accept his evidence, they must convict him either of deliberately shooting his brother in cold blood, which was murder, or on sufficient provocation, which was manslaughter. There were obvious difficulties in accused’s story from the point of view of accident, and there was the extraordinary position about the cocking of the gun. Who took the cartridge out? Then there was the extraordinary story that accused slipped and the extraordinary fact that a chance shot > killed his brother.

The jury retired at 12.30 p.m. to consider their verdict.