SUITCASE MURDER

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23556, 20 July 1938, Page 6

SUITCASE MURDER

TRIAL OF ARMSTRONG OPENING DAY'S PROCEEDINGS EVIDENCE OF MOTHER AND SON (Per United Press Association) WELLINGTON, July 19. In the Supreme Court, the trial of Douglas Alexander Armstrong, a fitter and turner, aged 21. on a charge of murdering his father. Edwin Norman Armstrong, at Wellington, on May 6. was started to-day. The jury was empanelled at noon, and the court rose until 2 o'clock to allow the police to make arrangements for the jurors, wlio will be kept together for the course of the trial, which is expected to last between three and four days. It is understood that 22 witnesses wil] be called for the Crown—one more than in the Magistrate’s Court. The remains of Edwin Armstrong were found in two suitcases below Picton wharf.

The Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) is on the Bench, the Crown Prosecutor (Mr W. H. Cunningham) is conducting the case for the Crown, and Mr H. F. O’Leary, K.C., with him Mr D. Foster, appears for Armstrong.

The back of the court was filled with the jury panel at noon, and there were few other spectators. Mr O’Leary challenged five times, and the Crown Prosecutor challenged two men and stood aside two. William Dysart *s the foreman of the jury.

The judge pointed out to the Jury that, the charge being one of murder, it was required that the members of the jury be kept together. Necessarily, they might be put individually to some little inconvenience, but that inconvenience would be minimised as far as possible. The case would last three days and a-half, possibly four, and they would have ample time in which to make their domestic arrangements through the police before the court resumed.

William Aitken Armstrong, training college student, a brother of the accused, aged 19, said he left home about 8.15 a.m. on May 6. and returned home from college at 9.3 p.m. Two knives and a .22 calibre rifle in court were identified by witness as the property of the accused.

Cross-examined by Mr O’Leary, witness said he had hidden the bolt of the rifle for fear his father might kill himself or others in the family. His brother had done the same after his father’s return from Australia (about two months before his death). Witness and his brother used to place something against the door to warn them of anybody entering. About two years ago his father slashed his brother’s hand with a table knife. Witness saw the occurrence. About 12 months ago their father had threatened witness with an axe. “About eight months or a year ago my father had taken up a fire poker to my brother and me. My brother had told him to go out and get work instead of living on us.” Witness said his father had jumped up and said he would knock out his brother’s brains, and made other vile comments. Witness’s brother left the room, and their mother intervened. At the slightest disturbance his father would pick up a book or tableware and throw it. Such events were common occurrences. Since his fathers return from Australia he and his brother repeatedly heard disturbances during the night from their parents’ room. They would listen ready to intervene. There was not one day of real happiftess in the home after his father’s- return from Australia. He did not speak with witness. but would only pass comments. He was gloomy, and his eyes were piercing and bloodshot. Witness’s mother supplied his father with £l3O of her savings in September to go to Australia. He came back after six months. Douglas expected to leave home soon, and the time was coiping when witness would have to leave, too.

Mary Robb Armstrong, school teacher, widow of Edwin Norman Armstrong, said they were married 22 years and there were two children of the marriage. Her husband was aged 55 at the time of his death. They came to Wellington in 1929 when her husband lost his employment with A. and T. Burt, Ltd., at Dunedin. When she received a letter from Douglas she did not read it as a message that he had killed his father, but as a statement that his father was dead. Douglas was very anxious for his father to leave home for witness’s safety. In answer to a question about her own relations with her husband witness said: “It was not so much a feeling of fear as a feeling of eeriness.” She had taken steps toward obtaining a separation many years ago when the children were young, but not since their arrival in New Zealand.

Mr O’Leary: In every possible way your son was as good a son as you could wish to have?

Witness: Nobody could have had a better son. Since 1929 her husband had not worked and she had kept him and bought his clothes. She had never taken a holiday without him. When he went to the races she provided £2 for each day and she provided reading matter to prevent his brooding. When he came back from Australia she offered him £lO a month to go away and Douglas said he would sell his car and give him the money. Douglas did everything for his father that he was asked to do. including drawing plans for a patent application touching the harness of waves to generate electricity. The court adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.