Medical Evidence in Napier Murder Case

Manawatu Times, Volume 70, Issue 44, 21 February 1945, Page 5

Medical Evidence in Napier Murder Case

ALCOHOLISM AND RESPONSIBILITY (Per Press Association.) NAPIER, Feb. 20. It was announced, in the Supreme Court trial of Martin James Eyles on double murder charges to-day that Dr. Couston, acting medical superintendent ! of the Porirua Mental Hospital, one of j the principal witnesses for the Crown, j entered the Napier Hospital yesterday i morning for an appendicitis operation. J It is understood that his written state-, meut will serve as evidence in lieu of his appearance. Continuing the. Crown evidence i Philip Aubrey MeCable, barman, said j at the time of tho shooting Eyles did not look wild or annoyed. After the ; shooting Eyles went very white. Cross-examined, witness said he had i addressed Eyles when he entered the l bar as “Mr. Churchill” due to his sturdy figure, dress and big cigar, lie did not think accused was drinking at | a heavier rate than usual over the holiday period. Thomas Roger described how he was hit in the right arm by the bullet which ! went through Swain. Nohting had hap- j pened to provoke Eyles. (Questioned as to accused’s insobriety j on the day of the shooting, witness! replied: “Who am I to judge?” Dr. Allan Berry, accused’s doctor, said if a man was proved to have been ! a consistently heavy drinker over a { number of years lie would suffer de- 1 generation of the brain. He believed that a man complaining of seeing: bright flashing lights iu the head, loss of memory, and hearing voices and: footsteps whon there were none, was suffering from alcoholic amnesia which! was forgetfulness over a period of time' of what had happened. Such a person ; would do and say things of which! afterwards he had no recollection. There were occasions known as alco-1 holic psychosis, meaning abnormality I of conduct when the victim could | imagine anything. The doctor added j that a man suffering from alcoholic psy- i chosis would be morally and legally I responsible for what he was doing be-1 cause he could have au understanding! of right and wrong. That would persist \ up to a point where he was suffering i from delusions and where he could be | said to be suffering from temporary insanity. Witness said a man could shoot and then forget it, but he could not say if being in a state of amnesia ! a man could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. (Questioned by Mr. Dowling, Senior-j Sergeant F. Forsythe said he believed 1 Eyles when arrested was suffering from I the effects of alcohol and was in a dazed condition. In the cell witness noticed that Eyles’ eyes were glassy. On the way to the police station Eyles never spoke and was in a morose condition. Constable Ewen Rippin, who participated- in the arrest of accused, said when in the ambulance going to the hospital Eyles said: “I had better be careful what I say. You’ll remember and use it as evidence.” Accused asked for a drink of water at the hospital, drinking four mugs of water. Then lie turned and after walking a few steps fell to the floor. Accused had a glassy look in his eyes but he could not say if he was unconscious. Constable Brian Nathan, who also assisted iu the arrest, confirmed that accused’s eyes were noticeably glazed Cross-examined, he said accused appeared to be mentally fogged. Mr. Dowling: What do you mean bv

that expression? Witness: He gave the impression that his mental faculties were impaired by over indulgence in alcohol. James Dewar Hunter, superintended of the Pokauui Mental Hospital, gave evidence of his examination of accused seven weeks after his arrest. Witness Buid he found accused frank and cooperative in answering questions. In a report hauded in by witness accused had stated that from 1931-1932 on he had had a feeling when walking behind people that he would like to jump on them and squeeze them. The report made frequent references to statements by accused regarding drinking practices alter which he had woken up and found bruises he had received iu brawls of which he had no recollection. Accused lent and borrowed money of w hich he had no •recollection. From 1933 to 1938 he was boiling up concoctions of weeds from the garden. In 1943 he alleged he had attempted suicide and alleged that he had also made liquor from fermented tomato jam. He complained of sleeplessness and severe headaches and could not think clearly. On December 20 between 2 a.m. and 0 a.m. he had had several drinks of rum. He recollected nothing between the hours of 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. of that day. Witness added that be had based his opinions of accused largely on what accused told him. Mr. Willis (Crown Prosecutor): Was it possible on this day that he could do what he had done and afterwards forget? Witness: With alcoholics all tilings are Risible.