COURTENAY TRAGEDY

Otago Witness, Issue 3861, 13 March 1928, Page 36

COURTENAY TRAGEDY

MURDER CHARGE UNSUPPORTED i THE ACCUSED DISCHARGED. CHRISTCHURCH, March 6. John Duncan, the Courtenay farmer, whose house and oatsheaf stacks were destroyed by fire on February 6, was to-day charged with the murder of his two-year--3d son, David Duncan. The court proand the inquest were held together before Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M. Mr A. T. Donnelly, Crown Prosecutor, conducted the case, and Mr C. S. Thomas appeared for the accused. Duncan, a short, heavily-built man with a moustache, was allowed to sit down in the dock. Evidence was given that the accused had a hasty temper, but soon cooled down. He seemed excited on his return from the court at Christchurch, where his "wife had been granted separation and maintenance orders. He told his men to knock off work and paid off all his hands. He had his child with him, but he told the men he would have to give up the child in the morning. He informed the housekeeper that she would have to go, as there would be no one in the house that night. The accused’s sister-in-law, Teresa Sword, single, stated that when Duncan saw her at the farm with his wife about 4.30 p.m. on February 6 he had the baby in his arms, and went to the washhouse, where he stood at the door with an axe in one hand, and threatened them with the axe. When asked for the child, the accused told them to get off the farm or else he would use the axe. William S. Pattison, who accompanied the women, stated that when he asked for the child the accused said: “ You were responsible for her first husband’s death, and will be responsible for mine and my child’s in the morning.” The accused used very bad language to them. Eventually they went to Kirwee, and returning about 6.45 p.m. found the house, the stacks, and the stooks all on fire. There was no sign of Duncan or the child. George Seaton, farmer, stated that he saw Duncan’s house on fire, and Duncan driving down the paddock with his child in a gig. Later he saw the horse and’ gig going along the road at a gallop. I'here was no one in the gig. The accused had told witness that if hie wife got all she was asking for in the maintenance case he would walk off the place. James Riley stated that he saw the accused enter the gig with the baby and then go round the whole of the stacks and light them. Hie house was then alight. He attempted to light the stripped paudock, but the grass would not catch fire. Robert Henderson, farmer, said he found the body of the baby at 9 p.m. in a water race in about 12in or 14in of water. Dr A. B. Pearson, pathologist, said the post mortem revealed that the child was in a state that would have rendered it very susceptibe to shock, and liable to sudden death under anaesthetics or under any strain. It would be liable to die under any sudden fright, such as might be caused by seeing the place Burning. Mr Thomas: Was there any water in the lungs? Witness: No. Mr Thomas: There was no trace of drowning?—No. Witness added that a child in this state might become unconscious, vomit, inhale, and die from the effects.

Felix Theodore Grigg, Government analyst, said he examined the contents of the stomach of the dead child. He did not detect the presence of poison or any other suspicious substance.

Constable Douglas Johns, of Darfield, said he searched for the accused, but found no trace of him on the farm. He found Duncan at 8.20 p.m. watching the fire. His clothing was wet. There was a cut on his arm. Witness asked where the child was, and the accused replied: “ I don’t know. They took him away this afternoon.” Detective Thomas said that when Detective Sergeant Young charged the accused with murder the accused replied: “ I did not murder him, but I suppose I will be hanged for it. There is nothing to live for now. A man tries to live respectably, and this is what happens.” In the course of a statement to Detective Sergeant Young on the day following the affair Duncan said that his married life was unhappy, and on December 10 last his wife left home, taking her child by a previous marriage with her. The statement outlined the court case in which maintenance was fixed nt £2 a week, and his subsequent arrival home. He told his men he would have to discharge them, as he had no money. When his wife and her sister arrived in a car with two men he did not remember what he said. “I do not remember anything else,” the statement concluded, “ until I awoke in the hospital strapped down. I did not know the house and stacks on my farm had been burnt down. Ido not remember setting fire to them myself, nor do I remember how I got the 'cut on my left arm, nor do I remember how I got all wet.” - Mr Mosley returned a formal verdict that death was due to asphyxia fallowing the inhalation of food into the bronchial tubes. ..“I submit, your Worship,” said Mr Thomas, “ that the prosecution has failed to prove a prima facie case against the accused. In consideration of the report of the post-mortem examination, all question as to murder has been absolutely disBelled.” '.

The Magistrate said he could see no possible reason why the accused should be committed to the Supreme Court. There was no sign of drowning, no signs of violence, and no signs that the child had been mishandled in any way. The accused was discharged.