RETRIAL OF GARDNER

Northern Advocate, 31 October 1932, Page 4

RETRIAL OF GARDNER

DEATH OP GEORGE CREAVE

CASE FOR THE CROWN,

CERTAIN EVIDENCE BARRED.

(Special to “Northern Advocate.”)

AUCKLAND, This Day,

The retrial cf Heta Fred Gardner, aged I~>, on a charge of murdering an old man, George Crewe, at Ruatangata, in Alay last, was begun today. The jury disagreed on the first trial, and since then a statement made to the police by accused has been held by the Court of Appeal to be inadmissible evidence. Case For The Crown. The acting-Crown Prosecutor told the jury today that while accused had not been declared insane lie lias been judged as not altogether normal. Perhaps ho could best be described as feeble-minded, but the question for the jury was whether he committed the crime or not. There their responsibility ended. The facts of the case, continued Mr Hubble, were that the deceased, an old-age pensioner, between the ages of 73 and 74, lived alone in a hut in the vicinity of Ruatangata, near Whangarei. He was seen alive on -Thursday, May 20, by two men who were fencing, and also in the afternoon by Mrs McDiannid. The next day -she placed some vegetables outside, the gate, and on the following day, Saturday, her husband noticed that they wore still there. On investigating in the hut, ho found deceased in his bed dead. The hut was dimly lit, and foul .play, was not suspected. It .was not until Sunday, when the police investigated, that they found evidence of foul play. There was an axe near the bed, and the injuries on deceased’s head were consistent with having booh struck with the blunt part of it. ’

After traversing the evidence that was to he called, Mr Hubble said Crewe obviously met his death by foul ‘play. Accused had been around that vicinity on May 22 till he got to Whangarei on May 27. The hat he had worn was found in the shack with bloodstains on it, while a pair of trousers, which accused had apparently taken from a neighbouring farmer’s, were also found there. In addition, deceased’s gun had been taken out of his hut, and it had been seen in the possession of accused, who, on the Saturday, the day after Crewe’s denth, took a constable to a place where he had hidden it.

The jury had to decide whether there was sufficient evidence to .-justify them returning a verdict, and there their responsibility ended. What followed was no responsibility of theirs.