THE RAMARAMA TRAGEDY

NZ Truth, Issue 539, 16 October 1915, Page 2

THE RAMARAMA TRAGEDY

WHO KILLED JOHN THOMAS PERRY?

TOP OF HIS HEAD BLOWN Off BY SHOT FROM GUN

His Wife Accused of His Murder

Evidence of the Woman's Infidelity— The Coroner's Verdict— Accused Committed for Trial

(Fronn "Truth's" Auckland Rep.)

The inquest on John Thomas Perry, the victim of the Ramarama tragedy, which was opened by the Coroner. Mr. F. V. Frazer, at Auckland, on "Wednesday of last week, was resumed on the following Thursday. Wednesday's proceedings have already been published. Mr. Selwyn Mays conducted the.Jnquiry for the police, while Mr. Prendergast appeared for Mrs. Perry, who was m custody, charged with the murder of her husband. The first witness called on Thursday was Harold Pilkington. farmer, who said he was aroused by hearing a boy ' shduting "Mr. Pilkey, come quick"; someone has shot father." He describ- } ed what he saw at the house and also testified to Mrs. Perry saying, "Someone must have shot him through the window." "Witness also described the circumstances leading up to the making of the willjn April last. This will had been m witness's possession till a few days ago when It was handed over to the Public Trustee. I MCDOWELL'S ASSERTIONS t Gordon McDowell, a laborer, residing at Drury, said he knew the deceased, ! also Mrs. Perry, and had been on j friendly terms with her tor over two ' years. \ Mr. Mays: You frequently met her by appointment? — Very seldom. , i She frequently visited your tent 1 alone? — What tent? { The tent at-Rumar&ma? — Yes. ' You have frequently cohabited with her? — Sometimes. You met her at about B.SO at Sut-

AMELIA PERRY

(The wife charged with murder)

ton's-roail on Tuesday, Septomber 21? — Yes. Did she ask for money? — Yes. YOU GAVE HER SOME? s — Half a sovereign. What did she wunt the money for? — She wanted her train fare to town. Did she say why Hhe asked you for money? — She said her husband had taken her purse. Did sue say anything elite about her Husband? — She said he had been nusty to her. Did she tell you that ho had culled her anything? Witness would not nay, but wrote down two words which cast doubt upon Mrs. Perry** parentage. How many times had Hhe complained to you about her husband's treatment of her? — About once. You met her a fortnight or three weeks ago at SuUon f 3-road? — You seem to know all about it. The Coroner: You aro sworn to tell the truth. It is no use quibbling. Mr. Mays: You Know all about it — how long have you been at Drury?— Six weeks. Again the witness evinced a desire to evade answering the Questions. Mr. Mays: Do you remember being at Ramaramti when I'erry waa supposed 10 be suffering from poisoning? — Yes. While he was m the hospital, did you and Mrs, Perry have a conversation ABOUT THR CHILD LEONARD? —No. She told you about Will?— Yes. Was that meeting by appointment? — No. While Perry waa m the hospital, did you met her by appointment on several oeeuMioiu*'.' — 1 huh h<- r on the road a few limes. Did h\w. if)! you that because of what th« - neighbors were saying about the child Leonard, that her hußbund hud taken v dislike to the child? -Yes. When was that? — Nina or ten woeku ago. Did she tell you that her husband had »:ild that you wore the father of that child?— No. she said that he said I that it was like me. j You recently told her that you' were going to buy a farm out of the district? — I wuh thinking about It. '• What did Hhe suy?~Shi> fluid that ! «h<? would visit mo tit odd times. ! I>Ul slu- trvvr threaten to Iruve her ■hutil.uml* — Hh.' mil«l something about : K'uvinK hint and golm: to town. I When wu« t hut'?-- In August. j Did yon w. r supply h««r with any cartrldgM»?—Nuv<. r In my lift. You UM'd to meet lu-r by th« «h<-d?--What nhi'd? j You ku.iw all about it. Wheru uomtt jof Hit- i-.irlritlt:,:* w < n- Ko t from.— S That's a nhauty on Suti.jn'.s furtn. lu-ar j tho road. j You huv,< l^vn working m Stmou'tt I furo»?--l-'ur live w«k:i. i How f,ir ht Perry* houao from Sut- , ton'H"—"i i 'ivr mlleu. | Answering furlhi-r qu<'*:lon>< Mr- ; POW^M « ; *M *>>M Of) liV hiKht of «Hii iv-m»>"r :*. Hp u«m io b.-<j „ft t. r tm j and d)»I no: kh itjt till nix \}u< tu«v. ' mt'rnhtiT He )i:ul mit tf-n Mm. I'crry i heiivn-n Scjtuti)i.rr 21 and 25. n,. omc» hail lo:irnd \ff liOj'. whon .<iw (-,-n; a K'fl *« nim * v *th it notv n-tyint; thr JUHY'S HLOTHKH HAD UKl'\ \ UUUNT. j Ttift* war* ttbout ten w *-<';«» ago. JVrry WUK i.>» i!> Ik'! hVßpiWll At Wt»it tiii>r. ' M; :»J.»ya: Wh.w *«* m th«* i,u!c*

Witness became stubborn, declining to answer. Mr. Frazer: Come on, you are not so shy as all that, McDowell. Witness: I don't want to fill everybody's mouth. Mr. Frazer: I am not concerned with what you think about filling everybody's moutti, pleaao answer as to how you knew some clothes were burned. McDowell: I can't answer that. Mr. Frazer: Have you forgotten?— No. Well. I am not going to have you fooling the Court. You just answer ihe • questions or I shall commit you for contempt of Court. ) Evidently this warning appealed to McDowell, because he said it was m the note that her husband h.td buvned the baby's clothes. Mr. Mays: What baby? — I don't know. Who was the baby?— Leonard. Has Mrs. Perry not told you, that you were the father of that child?— No, i she said the trouble was < aused by the neighbors saying so. I Continuing, witness said Sutton'sroad was not direct between Rama- ■ f rama and Drury, it was a by-road. He I had twice met her on the road, once m ' the paddock. It might have been twice j m the paddock, but it was m the day- ' time. She did not complain every time :she saw him about her husband's , treatment of her. He knew one neigh - { bor had told Perry he (witness) was ! the father of the child Leonard, but Perry never spoke to him about it and . they were good friends. Perry never accused witness of tampering with Mrs. perry. Before he camo to Drury . he was on his own section at Raraarnma. Mrs. Perry had visited his tent ' but not frequently. Perhaps the visits . averaged one a month. ; To Mr. Prendergaat: He did 'not know whether the clothes mentioned m the note meant the. child Leonard^ clothes or those of the baby j SHE WAS EXPECTING. He last saw deceased at the saleyards on the third Tuesday m September. They were quite friendly. X waß two. months or ten weeks ago that Mrs. Porry told him she had had trouble with her husband because of what tho neighbors had said about the parentage of the child Leonard. . < William Sutton, a farmer, said he ■ was working with McDowell on Sep- | t ember 24. That evening he went to ; bed m tho. same room. When witness woke ' about three a.m. he saw Me- ( Dowell m bed, also at six o'clock m the morning. During the live weeks prcviouh to the tragedy witness had twice . seen Mrs. Perry sit or near the farm. Will. Chus. Waugh. constable ut J Papakura, described what he saw, and also of finding a gun m ihc back room, while m another room he found an empty cartridge box. Tho left barrel of the gun hud the appearance of having been recently used. THE DETECTIVE'S DEDUCTIONS Peter Thomas McMuhon, chief detective, produced two pieces of skull, and two pellets and a fragment of the bed ; found on a quilt on tho bed. Tho ex-

GORD».)N McDOWKLL ' (Threaten**! with the penalties of contempt of court).

ItlbltH were found about -f* Cm or 3fl from the fool of the bod and on v por-tion-of the bed Mrs. rvrry would very probably htiv«~- occupied hud »hr h<>on Hk^plUK on iU-04'Urtcd'rt k-ft Hide Tho blouHO produced waa oiu # worn by Mrs. Pvrrv and on tho ri«ht hJ«-»«vo \vii<bloodstnlHH, Mru. P«-rry said h\x» slept with th<? blouso «»n thui night. VV)u«n h)i»> heurd the «>)"' **h'* put her hand on her hunbuml und iaUl. "WHAT'S THK MATTKH WITH YOl'. DAD?" This wax how who ilceounU'd for the bhKHI on the nloi've. Th«» following dny wUru'tiN. with lv«u»Uvo-.s<-rKf«ui HoiHrn. took a Ktiii«'»ii**iii down m wriiin«Afl>'r belnK r-Kul to her wln« hlkupU i^ftoh puK l '- Witness and Hollls wotu can-' Hilly into lh«« poKsibUlty of the dfeeas- ,(,! inlnK whoi through lh« window. jjf.l)lß .si?;ht«'tl th« Bun through th«window whll»- wiliivSN took up ur> »n-«r nn p(».f«ib!«' ;i ptwition th< v detoujiej Umi oti'tjpU'd on the »nd, Jit- cnim- to lh« conclusion ihni it wun tmpp.-Mibtf for «|i«.?fui«ed to huv<' bern Mhol Utroutth thf window, Wh**n «rrrj»tfd und furnu«liy chared with murdiyr Mru IVrry maid, "I did not do it." A careful {•<.>« re li fnti<Hl lo llnd un «-mpt>- ciiriri.ls«-. To Mr, I'Ti'mJiTits* I**1 ** = '< >li<: w»mnn i;u\r lu*r ifjittcmnii frr< !>. ,U,)ut Wiiltrr HulU?. v <!'it'ctlvo-»t-r. Ki-nnl, tit-*c?Uit>d wh.it h«' kuw of ihv« lilnod und \>mli\ inaiu-t :*<-;ut«.'r»'d on tin- hi<i] «nd wall. Krt'in wl.jii h* *uw Jn« did not tiilnK it v>«.»*nlbii» that dr<wkin'd who (*tio[ through Jhfl n'lmlotv ( >r thftt Mr", Perry won In bed with d< n-iirctl when h<* rn«'l hl?» «U*«lh. U" fuiMnl n«*nh«'r varti'ldxri* n^r uii> tr<*t,c ut iiioUtf) (ii thy hoyjlfc. D<*ora*»

ed had cashed a creamery cheque that day. In her statement made to the police £he woman said that all went to bed as usual. She was awakened by hearing a shot. She denied having done the deed. THE CORONER'S VERDICT. The Coroner returned a verdict that John Thomas Perry was murdered about 2.30 a_m. on September 25, 1915, through being shot m the head while lying m bed at his house at Ramarama. The evidence showed that the muzzle of the gun from which the shot was fired was held either against or within two feet of deceased's head. The na--ture of the wounds and the angle at which the shot was fired rendered it most unlikely that the person who discharged the gun was outside the room at the time. The evidence showed that deceased's wife had been for some time past improperly intimate with the witness McDowell and had been partly on that account on bad terms with her husband. She had also spoken of leaving him. There was no suggestion that deceased had any enemies. Mrs. Perry was m the bedroom with deceased at the time the shot was fired and >lt would be difficult for any other person to have left the room, whioh was filled with moonlight, after the shot was fired without having been seen or heard by her. A gun, of which one barrel was recently discharged, was found m the House. The evidence showed how far Mrs. Perry was concerned. There was a combination of motive, opportunity and means and an abaenefe of any evidence tending to implicate anyone else, but m fairness to her, and m view of the fact that she stood charged with, the murder of deceased, and also that the evidence WAS CIRCUMSTANTIAL AND INFERENTIAL, he did not propose to find definitely against her or to analyse evidence m detail. It was sufficient to justify her being committed for trial, and It was m the interests of justice that ho should not make a definite finding, which might affect the minds of a jury who would try her. COMMITTED FOR TRIAL A charge of murder was preferred against Amelia Perry, and In order to shorten the proceedings the depositions were read to the witnesses, who swore to the evidence as being correct. Accused, who calmly watched the proceedings throughout and seemed not the lea«t concerned, was committed for trif»l to the Supreme Court.