War’s Sinister Influence

Manawatu Times, Volume LV, Issue 7006, 16 November 1932, Page 7

War’s Sinister Influence

Unusual Evidence In Murder Trial

STRANGE COINCIDENCE OF DATES

Per Press Association. NEW PLYMOUTH, Last Night. The- trial of Hubert Cedric Jepson, charged with tho murder of his wife and two children on September 15th, was continued to-day before Mr Justice Heed. William McArty, foreman for the Taranaki County Council, stated accused worked under him on the Petonc road in November last. One day Jepson was wheeling a barrow across the road and had just reached the other side when lie turned round, fell across his load and rolled on the ground. He was stretched out on the ground and was whining and moaning and his body was jerking. He was frothing at the mouth.

John S. Hickey, farmer, Opunakc, said he was in the same unit on active service as Jepson. He had volunteered to give evidence because of a peculiar incident which he remembered when lie saw the account of the tragedy. He remembered that it had occurred at & a.m. on September 15th and that was the anniversary- of the date and the precise time of day at which the New Zealanders went “over the top" in the Battle of the Somme. That was the first time many New Zealanders had gone into a big battle and the first time Jepson had gone “over the top." Witness said he know tho effect of the recurrence of this anniversary on some of the men, especially on those who had not strength to resist certain impulses. He felt them him-

self but had the power of resistance. James H. Barnard said he saw service with Jepson at tho war. He remembered an occasion when Jepson came to a garage at Eltham and had a peculiar stare in his eyes. Witness spoke to him as he had not seen him for a long time since the war and thought he would like to renew his acquaintance, but he found it difficult lo engage him in conversation. Charles David Arnold said he owned the house in which Jepson had lived in French Street. He left that place owing witness between £4O and £SO. He had seen him on several occasions and spoken about the arrears of rent. He visited Jepson on tho Sunday before the tragedy and tried to come to some arrangement about payment of arrears.

Dr. I. M. Allen, a brain and nerve specialist, continuing the evidence for tho defence, said that as a result of an examination of accused and inquiry into his life history, his recollection of events on the morning of September 15, and his condition at the timo of the examination, ho had concluded that the accused.had suffered a splitting of the brain which rendered him incapable at tho time of knowing the nature and quality of his acts. In answer to tho Judge, witness said that so far as his knowledge went, the accused was never certifiably insane. Medical witnesses for the defence agreed that at no time could Jepson be said to have been certifiably insane. They agreed to a possibility that Jepson was subject to dissociation of the diseased condition of his brain, which made it possible for one part of the brain to be unconscious of the nature and quality of the act, though possibly Jepson was conscious of the actual commission of the act. Evidence called by the Crown in rebuttal showed a sharp conflict of medical opinion as to Jepson’s sanity. Dr. Russell, of Wellington, said he was definitely of the opinion that Jepson was sane. Crown witnesses said that thcro was no similarity between Jepson’s condition at the time of the killing ancl when he had what had been described as an epileptic fit in tho previous November. Their opinion was that that attack was more probably fainting. The hearing continues to-morrow.