WAS HIGGINS INSANE?

Southland Times, Issue 19170, 14 February 1924, Page 5

WAS HIGGINS INSANE?

CONFLICTING MEDICAL TESTIMONY. WAIKINO MURDERER ON TRIAL (Per United Press Association.) AUCKLAND, February 13. The trial of John Christopher Higgins for the murder of two boys by shooting at the Waikino school was continued to-day. Dr Bull said accused was suffering from chronic insanity through the delusion of persecution, and was likely to become the subject of homicidal mania. Witness said emphatically that he believed accused suffered from disease of the mind to such an extent that he was incapable of understanding what he did at the school, and that he did not know it was wrong—he camo within the definition of irresponsibility. Mr Meredith: Do you suggest that when he pulled out the revolver and covered the headmaster he did not know he had a revolver in his hand?

Witness: It is quite possible. He may have known it would do a certain amount of harm, but I think he was unconscious of the degree of harm it would do. Drs De Clive Lowe, W. E. Williams and E. B. Gunson, gave evidence for the defence to the effect that Higgins was suffering at the time of the tragedy and at the present from chronic delusional insanity, and was insane in the legal sense at the time of the shooting, and did not know the nature of his act. In rebuttal, the prosecution called Drs St. L. H. Gribben, officer in charge at Tokanui Reformatory, T. G. Grey, superintendent of the Nelson Mental Hospital, D. N. W. Murray and R. M. Beattie, superintendent of the Auckland Mental Hospital With the exception of Dr Beattie, the doctors were of the opinion that Higgins was insane, suffering from chronic systemised delusional insanity, but when he did the shooting he knew what he was doing and that he was doing wrong. Dr Beattie expressed the opinion that when shooting the children Higgins knew what he was doing and that it was wrong. Witness considered that Higgins left home with homicidal tendencies. Cross-examined, witness said: “I did not say Higgins was insane.” There was mental abnormality, but on the evidence he had, witness was not prepared to diagnose the case. It was possible that the man was insane. The hearing of evidence was concluded and the case adjourned.