PUKEKAWA MURDER TRIAL.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XLV, Issue 12208, 20 November 1920, Page 5

PUKEKAWA MURDER TRIAL.

THE JURY DISAGREES. NEW TRIAL ORDERED. Per Press Association.) Auckland, Nov. 19 The trial of Samuel John Thorn, charged with the murder of Sidney Seymour Eyre at Pukekawa on August 24th, was continued to-day. Mr Martin announced that he would call no farther evidence for the Crown. Mr Singer then addressed the jury for the defence. Ho pointed out that if the verdict jyqs adverse the Judge must pass sentence of death. It was the duty oi the Crown to prove to the last inch the necessity to take a human life. They would remember that at the inquest the accused, who was a compellable witness and had refused on his counsel’s advice to answer question!, had on oath given an emphathic denial that he committed the murder. With reference to the conversation between Taylor, the hotelkeeper, and Thorn, when the witness Shugar was a mere listener, the jury would have to be satisfied not only that the accused’s remark was not an admission, but was a natural answer to what had previously transpired. Counsel thought he could show there were the gravest doubts ia the oase and that there was not only a possibility but an extreme -probability that not the accused, but someone else, committed the murder. The report given to DetectiveSergeant Cummings, that Thorn had been seen outside on the night of the murder, was untrne. If anyone had seer, him, evidence -would have been given. Circumstantial evidence must be strong in every link. The expert Hazard, he might call him the Hazardous expert, and two doctors declared that the shot had been fired by a left-handed shot. It was suggested that Eyre was shot in the left eye. A lefthanded shot firing from a window would have struck Eyre’s right eye. It was extraordinary that the witnesses declared the shot was necessarily fired from outside the window, when the'same angle could have been obtained by moving the bed. For some weeks Eyre was sleeping heavily. Was he given something, or had he (‘taken something, to make him sleep? Was he such a heavy sleeper that he would not be disturbed by the moving of the bed? Outside house there were no footmarks and no finger prints. The Crown’s theory was based on a planned murder. Was it animosity towards her husband ? Could a woman admitting misconduct as she had done have any regard for him? Mr Singer added that it had been suggested that counsel had cast a slur on a dead man.

His Honor: If you were not making a charge of Improper conduct against the husband I do not know what yon meant. Mr Singer—l made no such charge. I am not suggesting it is a crime cr weak thing to use bad language. I <?»m suggesting that this woman was of snoh a nature that no ordinary man would have failed to use bad language towards her. I invite you, gentlemen, from her evidence to say that if he did not use bssd language to her then he was an absolute angel. Did she deserve it? Am I casting a slur on the dead by saying that this man called her bad names? There are no, names I have in my vocabulary which I think this woman does not deserve. With regard to the incidents of the night of the murder, counsel said that Mrs Eyre could not tell within two hours when the dog barked, If that was so, then'the harking could have been before she went to bed. If the j evidence raised the question whether | it was possible that Mrs Eyre fired the shot, then the accused was entitled to the benefit. There was no flurry, fear or horror on her part when counsel repeatedly referred to her husband’s brains and blood, and showed her the horrible photograph. Had they ever seen calmer demeanour ? Was there any meaning in that? She had admitted that on the might of the murder she was satisfied it was Thorn’s footsteps she heard and also his gun ; and she admitted she told her children not to mention her familiarity with Thorn because they “might he the means of hanging an iuaocsnt man.” Significant words ! Why should she come here and blast her reputation? Counsel presumed she would rather have her reputation blasted than 16 tried for murder. That was likely her choice Why did she not tell the police that she heard Thorn’s steps ? The most conclusive fact in the case, said counsel, was that when accused asked Mrs Eyre on September 4th why she suspected him, she replied because under the circumstances he was the only one she conld think of. Did the jury not think she would have answered “Why, Sam, I heard you.” Possibly there was someone unreasonable to suppose that those who planned it planned it so that everyone should believe Eyre was shot outside the window. Mr Singer commented on tins fact that the contents of deceased’s stomach had not been analysed. That was nearly as extraordinary as the fact that there was no evidence 'fat .foot marks by the window. In regard to the horse shoe prints in the mud, these had only been traced for 4 % miles. If these marks were the wonderfully distinct things they wore said to be why were they not traced to Grauville’s place? Surely that cast considerable doubt upon the suggestion tSiat they were made by “Micky’s” shoes. * A detective had examined some 1800 horses, of which 418 were shod. It might be that the 419th horse had had his shoes taken off before the police arrived. If it cuuld have been shown conclusively that the marks were made on the night of Tuesday, August 3th, it mighf have slightly strengthened the Crown’s case. It had been admitted by the Crown that even if it was proved that they were “Mickey’s” shoe marks at the post, that did not prove that Thorn was there that night. The question of motive was one of the most important in a case of circumstantial evidence. It was a great peg upon which the Grown had hung its hat. Even strong evidence of motive was not sufficient. Mrs Eyre had said that the accused had her in bis power. Did the jury think anyone could get that calm, cold, callous, calculating woman in his power? Or would shehe the one to put her tentacles round some man ? Here lay the destruction of the Crown’s theory of motive. When Thorn packed up his things more- than

once, that woman who hated him, despised him, feared him, instead of saying “Here is a month’s wages, get out for heaven’s sake,” asked him “What is the matter ? What are yon going for ?” Then in regard to the advertisement. She showed it to her hnbsand, but never > asked what it meant, and despite a woman’s natural curiosity she never asked about certain letters Eyre received from abroad and which he burned immediately he read them. Was the . advertisement pat in the paper by someone connected w itb the murder? Must not Mrs Eyre’s attitude have been that of a woman who did not care or had some other .than Mrs Eyre or accused who wa sin the case. Mr Singer concluded his address at 12.25. Mr Martin did not address the jury. HIS HONOUR’S SUMMING UP. The Chief Justice, in summing up, referred to Mr Singer’s remarks about Mrs Eyre. The jury, he said, started with the fact that the woman and the man did wrong. There was the question of motive. What was the position of accused?* If the evidence was true, alter the husband’s return accused had made what were practically threats against him. He desired the woman. He was dominated by love or lust for her—they could use whichever word they wished, ft did not matter. It might be that *his desire to get the woman led him to commit this great crime. If the jury came to the conclusion, in tho event of the other evidence being correct, that Thorn was in "the neighbourhood ot Eyre’s house on the night of the murder, if he was dominated by this lust—love some people called it—then he might have wanted to get rid of Eyre. It was suggested that the crime might have been committed by Mrs Eyre, but that was not suggested by the prisoner himself, He had denied the suggestion that, it was done by her or the family. If it was done by her or the family, where was the gun? The one gun in the place had not been fired for about a mouth. “Can there by any shadow of suggestion,’’ asked his Honor, “that you, as honest men, can rely upon, to say that this shot was fired by some person in the house?” The accused had not suggested that.' On the contrary he had suggested that it might have been fired from outside. If the suggestion did not come from Thorn it was not necessary to go further into it, but there was a gun found in accused’s possession that had been fired about the same time as the gun that killed Byre. His Honor added that if the jury came to the conclusion . that the deceased was shot from outside it did not matter what statements Mrs Eyre made; she was not the person who committed the; murder. He would not comment on the suggested charge against her. He thought that charge should not be considered by the jury,- unless the evidence pointed Inevitably to her. Could they say that any evidence pointed to’ her at all? THE JURY DISAGREES. NEW TRIAL ORDERED. Auckland, Nov. 19 After a long retirement, the jury intimated that there was*no chance of an. agreement, and a“new trial was ordered.