Armstrong Found Guilty Of Manslaughter; Gets 10 Years

Northern Advocate, 22 July 1938, Page 7

Armstrong Found Guilty Of Manslaughter; Gets 10 Years

Flora Butcher, or Kilbirnie, formerly a neighbour of the Armstrong family. said Mrs Armstrong had been living with her since the tragedy. Mrs Armstrong was frequently distressed when she visited witness's home. It had been the practice of witness and her husband to visit the Armstrong homo, but • the deceased made things so uncomfortable that they decided to stay away. For a short period the two families shared a house at Day’s Bay. The deceased was very horrible to witness and her husband. Donald William Butcher, son of the previous witness, said the deceased was a man who for the slightest thi'ng would fly into an uncontrollable temper. This concluded the evidence for the defence. Counsel’s Eloquent Appeal. “What will the end of this trial be to this boy—for he is scarcely anything more—who is in the dock on a charge of murder, the penalty for which you know?” Mr O’Leary asked, “Will your verdict mean chat he. by the end of the week, will be returned to the mother he loves so much, his love for whom, as stated in his letter, forbade him to desert her?” Mr O’Leary said he was going to place before the jury arguments, contentions and submissions on which, consistent with its oath, it could conscientiously return a verdict favourable to the accused. He outlined the responsibility of the Crown in proving its charge, and quoted authorities in support of his contention that in the present case, in which the act of killing was admitted, the onus of proof was still on the Crown. Accused’s defence was self-defence against an unprovoked assault. “It fs necessary to give a brief outline of the family life leading up to the tragedy,” Mr O’Leary said. “It reveals a home where misery reigned from day to day. In 22 years of married life this brave little woman has kept herself,, her husband and her family.” The man who should have been the breadwinner was, the evidence said, abusive and violent. A bargain was arranged for the deceased to go away for good. The hard-earned savings of £l3O were given him, and he was away for nine months, but this temporary happiness was not to continue. The deceased came back and the wife and son pleaded with him to leave. The accused decided on May 6 to seehis father and try to persuade him to leave. The boy felt that his mother would be alone with the deceased, and that something must be done. Mr O’Leary submitted that every word spoken by Mrs Armstrong was true. He said her evidence was not bitter. It was quiet and frank, and had the ring of truth.

What Happened? “What was the motive of Douglas in returning to the house on Friday, May 6?" counsel asked. “When he returned to that house the idea of killing his father was in no way present in his mi'nd. No premeditation, no plan, no secrecy. I submit he went to endeavour to persuade his father to leave. Whatever happened, it was not premeditated by this boy. “It is submitted to you that the father started the aggressiveness. Douglas started into him with his hands. What happened after that? I submit it can be reconstructed from the wounds of the deceased. “The father is the aggressor, lie starts in with some weapon, we do not know what. The son seizes it from him. Here is a man whose brain has snapped. His son fears him. This is the man who had slashed him with a knife, the man who had taken a poker tc him, the man > who would have choked him but for the intervention of his mother. He strikes him. That is not sufficient. Something else has to be done. “Unfortunately, there is a knife at hand, which this boy uses on his father with fatal results. I put It to you that the blows on the head were before the stabs on the body." Self-Defence Urged. Mr O’Leary referred to the letter written by the accused to his mother. Mr O’Leary said he had not dealt extensively with the mitigation of provocation, which was not a defence but a mitigation, meaning that the 1 major charge of murder could be reduced to one of manslaughter. Ho submitted that the verdict would be not guilty on the grounds of selfdefence. but if they considered provocation then there was provocation such as no ordinary man could have withstood. Justifiable provocation was present in quantities to justify tiro jury in reducing the charge to one of manslaughter, but he asked them to go further and find a verdict of not guilty on the grounds of self-defence. Mr O’Leary’s address lasted an hour and 20 minutes. Crown Prosecutor's Address. The Crown prosecutor, Mr W. H. Cunningham, said that murder was murder, no matter what might be the character of the victim He asked the jury not to cloud its judgment in this case by any suggestions which might arise from the evidence which had been led as to the character of the deceased.

Douglas Alexander Armstrong, fitter and turner, was today found guilty of manslaughter by the jury in the Supreme Court and was sentenced to 10 years’ hard labour. Armstrong was charged with murdering his father, Edwin Norman Armstrong, m Defence Evidence Closed. *

Although the case was a rather sensational one in some particulars, there were very few disputed facts, he said. The facts net disputed were that on Friday. May 6, about 9 a.m., accused killed his father at 20 Hinau Road by inflicting the injuries on him described by Dr. Lynch. It was not disputed that he disposed of the body in the way described, but it had been pointed out that the course adopted by the accused after the death of his father, no matter how horrible it might be 1 thought, was no aid in coming to a decision about the actual killing. The deceased was a slightly-built man. and accused had said that he had no fear of the deceased as fa.v as his physique was concerned, counsel continued. The evidence showed that the deceased resented suggestions that he should leave. What hope had the accused, in view of what had happened previously, that on this day his father would meekly pack up and go? Had he considered any alternative method if his father refused? That was a matter for the jury to consider. “I submit there is no doubt that the accused meant to kill his father when he went for him with the knife,” Mr , Cunningham continued. He submitted ; that, although the deceased might have raved, he was not a dangerous lunatic, and had nothing with which to harm the accused. He held that there was nothing tc justify an acquittal on I the grounds of self-defence. | The defence of provocation was re- j viewed by Mr Cunningham. He said j the jury would probably find itself in some difficulty in this matter. There was no question in law but that the deceased had a right to live in his home. His wife had taken no steps for a separation. The accused went there with a request which, it was submitted, he must have known would have provoked his father. Was it not more likely that the accused went there with a dislike of his father, had his request refused, and then lost his control? One had a certain sympathy for a young man In accused’s position, but this was not a matter for the jury, “If you consider the whole of your facts, using your commonsense, I have no doubt you will reach a proper verdict,” Mr Cunningham concluded. His Honour said that he would sum up this morning. j His Honour Sums Up. “You have listened for the last two and a-half days to a trial that has been conducted in a manner conformable with all the best traditions of British justice,” said His Honour in summing-up. “The preparation of the case prior to the trial has been admitted—and very properly admitted—by Mr O’Leary to have been in the best traditions of a fair and honourable police force. It is admitted that not only fairness,' but every possible consideration, has been given to the accused.”

His Honour added that the Crown Prosecutor had conducted the case with his usual scrupulous fairness, and Mr O’Leary had conducted the defence With his customary skill, ability and zeal. Now it was for the jurymen, with due regard to the duty they owed to the accused, to themselves and to society, to consider calmly and dispassionately the evidence, and pronounce fearlessly and without compunction, a verdict directed by their conscience and their intelligence. Both counsel had asked the jury, and he emphasised it. that they should consider the case only in the light of the evidence they had had presented to them in Court. Mr O’Leary had complained of the currency of false rumours and of unfair publicity. His Honour said he, however, knew nothing of either one or the other, and nothing was before him on the matter, except what Mr O’Leary had said. “One hears," said His Honour, “and, perhaps, one knows, that in some countries when what appears to be a sensational crime has been committed, the newspapers may send out reporters and scouts to gather and publish information from all kinds of persons, including those who may be witnesses, in the event of some person being apprehended and required to stand trial on a charge of having committed the crime. After the summing-up by the Chief Justice, the jury retired at 11.37. Kaikohe The Kaikohe oasKeioaii icam gained a meritorious victory when they defeated Ngawha on Saturday. The score was 16—8. Table Tennis. The usual table tennis tournament ' was hold In the Masonic Hall on Saturday evening. Ladder leaders are Miss Roberts i ladies) and Mr H. Crook (men). Each evening the membership is steadily increasing and table tennis is one of the most popular sports in the town. After a delightful supper a dance was held. Misses D. O'Neill. S. Sanders and E. O'Neill supplied the spirited music. Personal, Mr A, McCready is an inmate of the Bay of Islands Hospital. Mrs F. T Goodhue, who lias been ill for some time, lias returned home. Messrs G. H. Fayne and A. W. White are on a short motor tour of South Auckland. Mr H. Holcroft has taken over the business of Mr A. Laird. Mr M. Wilson, of the Bank of New Zealand, has received notice of a shift and will be leaving the' North early next week.