MURDER TRIAL.

Taranaki Daily News, 16 November 1920, Page 5

MURDER TRIAL.

THORN IN SUPREME COURT, j j CASE FOR THE CROWN. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, By Telegraph,—Press Association. Auckland, Last Night. The trial of Samuel John Thorn, farm hand, 34 years of age, who was arrested on September 11th on a charge of having murdered Sydney Seymour Eyre, farmer, at Pukekawa, on the night of August 24, was begun at the Supreme Court to-day, before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and a jury of twelve. In the absence of the Crown Prosecutor, the prosecution was conducted by Mr. J. C. Martin and Mr. R. P. Hunt. Mr. R. A. Singer, Mr. 0. E. Stout, and Mr W. J. Gatenby defended accused, and Mr. F: D. McLivtr watched the proceedings on behalf of Eyre's widow.

The body of the Court was crowded, and a number of women occupied the gallery. Thorn, a short man under middle height, thick set, clean shaved, and fresh complexioned, pleaded not guilty In the course of a long opening address, Mr. Martin reminded the jury that the Crown was just as interested in seeing justice down as anyone else. He asked jurymen to disabuse their minds of anything they had heard or read about the case before coming into Court. It would be most unfair and unjust to allow anything they may have heard to weigh with them for or against the prisoner. The evidence, said Mr. Martin, would consist of what was called circumstantial evidence. People had got the idea that circumstantial evidence was an unreliable sort of thing, ;but thrt experience of all those who had spent time in the Courts was that circumstantial evidence was more reliable than direct evidence. Unfortunately the case had some unpleasant features about it.

WIFE'S DISCOVERY. After telling the jury the short facts of Eyre's career —his hard work in turning his section from its rough state into a property worth over £17,000, how he got ill and wept to Canada, where he had relatives, his enlistment with the Canadian forces, and his ( return to New Zealand—Mr. Martin said the family consisted of Mr. and Mrs. Eyre and several children, and there had also been several farm hands, including Thorn, who had been employed for two years during Evrc's absence, and for some period after his return. Jt was those people who had a knowledge of the house and the household. 1

On the night of the murder, Mrs. Eyre retired to bed at about 9 p.m., and was later awakened by dogs barking under the house, and she called out to them to lie. down. She then went to sleep, and some time after midnight was awakened by hearing the report of a gun. Getting no reply when she called out to her husband, she lit a candle and found that he had been murdered, practically the whole of his head being blown oil'. The first thing to consider wns what was the motive for the crime. Clearly it was not robbery. Nothing was disturbed and nothing was taken away. Iu passing, Mr. Martin referred to the fact that the gates leading to and from Eyre's had all been opened, showing that the person who had done the murder knew the place, and made sure that lie would be able to get away in a hurry if anything happened. If robbery were not the motive for the crime, then the question arose, Who did it and why? Putting the children on one side, counsel said the firqt person to turn to was Mrs. Eyre. Speaking of tlic will left by Eyre, Mr. Martin said it was fair and just, and he told the jury that under its provisions Mrs. Eyre "would benefit to the extent of £l5O to £lsl a year. Was, he asked, her desire to gain that sum an adequate desire for murdering her husband. She already had a home, and was it likely that the woman would commit such a dastardly deed for the benefit of £154 a year at most?

Before her husband returned from the war, counsel proceeded, Mrs. Eyre had been engaged in illicit intercourse with Thorn, and that had continued after Kyre's return. Mrs. Eyre's story was that she allowed accused to continue carrying on with her because he threatened to expose her to her husband. Accused, said counsel, had a strong desire to possess the woman, and his motive for the crime would be one of jealousy, and a. probability that his monetary position would be considerably improved. The action of Mrs. Eyre and the circumstances surrounding her movements were not those which would suggest that she was a murderess; indeed, he thought it had been proved conclusively that she was innocent.

The only other person who would have any motive in committing the crime, suggested counsel, was the prisoner. Thorn was left-handed, and shot from his left shoulder. He was a good shot,' and had brought dowij 17 pigeons with as many shots. He possessed a 12 bore shot gun and used a peculiar kind of shot, similar to that fired at Eyre. It was true that accused was a short man and the window at which the murdered man was sleeping was so high that a six-foot man standing on the ground and looking through the window could not see Eyre's head, but by standing on a board, outside, and holding oil to the sill by his right hand, the accused's head would be at least a foot above the sill, and he would have ample power to shoot. REPLIES TO A DETECTIVE. What are the links which will connect up the prisoner with the crime, asked Mr. Martin. He pointed out that the accused's dog, which was kept at Eyre's house, barked once oh the night of the murder. It was an animal that barked at everyone who approached the house, including the Eyres, until he recognised the person. Why did the dog not bark again beforo the gun was fired? Was it because someone approached near enough in the first instance for it to recognise him?

On the evening of the day following the murder, Detective Cummings had interviewed Thorn and told him of the murder. The accused's behaviour was somewhat peculiar, commented Mr. Martin, for his reply when he heard the news was merely "Yes," —not another word. Then, when questioned by the detective as to when he had last cleaned his gun, hp replied "Yesterdo.y or to-day,* "Where were von. nn