ALLEGED WIFE MURDER

Taranaki Daily News, 20 November 1930, Page 3

ALLEGED WIFE MURDER

ALIENISTS DISCUSS INSANITY ALEXANDER TOWNSEND ,ON TRIAL l FINALITY ANTICIPATED TO-DAY Lengthy medical evidence with the object of proving insanity at the time Mrs. Cora Alice Townsend was killed at. Fitzroy. early on the morning of September 16 closed the defence of Alexander Townsend, charged with murder, in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday. The Crown followed with technical evidence in rebuttal by the superintendents of the Porirua and Nelson mental hospitals. Once again the body of the court was crowded throughout the > , It was indicated that the Crown may produce two more witnesses this morning. After that both counsel will address the jury, the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, will sum up, and the jury will retire.

Resuming his examination Dr. E. A. Walker said he had heard Dr. Thomson’s evidence regarding the cause of Mrs. Townsendls death. Witness examined the body on the morning of September 17. His opinion was 'that the wound in the front of the neck, with the division of the front jugular vein, would cause such haemorrhage that the woman would bleed to death in three minutes. He did not agree with Dr. Thomson’s opinion regarding the cause of death. There were two separate acts, The wound at the back was ex-san-guinated, showing there was a very large loss of blood before its infliction. It was obvious the wounds at the back were inflicted after the wounds in front. During the latter part of the time required for the infliction of the back wounds the woman niust have been dead. The back wound would have taken from five to eight minutes to carve out.

Regarding the evidence already given at the trial, the doctor said, assuming the .truth of any of the facts deposed, it was indicated strongly that Townsend was insane at the time ot the act.

“Legally or medically?” asked. His Honour.

“Both,” replied the doctor. He relied for his opinion first on the nature of the wounds. The wound in the front of the neck was sufficient to cause death in three minutes. The infliction of . the wound at the back could not have taken less than fivo minutes, probably more, because of the nature of the instrument.

“It would have taken all of five minutes with this knife,” said the doctor on, examining, it. The woman' was being hacked at for three minutes after death. In the course of his practice he had seen many wounds in this region; but never anything so appalling as this. “Such injuries in my opinion,” he said, “were not the- work of a person desiring merely to kill, but bf a raving maniac.” “Without realising what he was doing?” said His Honour. “Yes/’. • • “The act of an automaton?” • “Yes.” . - ...

KNOWLEDGE AFTERWARDS.

“Would he have any knowledge of it afterwards?’* “When he came back to his senses hd might.” . The second point in favour of insanity, continued the doctor, was his failure to realise his wife was dead. He had-asked Constable Lapouple and later Detective Meiklejohn if his wife were dead; 4. After wards in prison he said. “The deed is done, so I am told.” This loss of memory of detail was important in regard to insanity. Counsel then put to the doctor the following questions submitted to DrTruby King by Mr. Justice Chapman in the Dr. Goode murder trial, the replies of the witness being appended:— ,1. Did the accused, in your opinion, when he killed his wife, possess the power of formulating his. own rational judgment, substantially unbiassed by mental disease, as to the time, nature and quality, including the moral and legal nature and. quality ?—Certainly bo did not, in my opinion., 2. Was his inability to form such judgment due to mental disease ? Jt was.

3. Was the act an act of his own independent volition iir a true sense, or was it an act dictated.or dominated by ’some influence arising ifroni ;.aytual mental disease, which influenue..he was unable by his will to control ?—lt wa« by the latter, in my opinion. 4. Using the terms as you use' them, or as they are popularly used, and treating the question as a question of fact, do you consider that, a man who is to that extent wanting in. control is responsible for his act? —No, : -l do not. 5. ,Can you affirm that a man in having a condition of the brain, as the organ of the mind, such as you find here, is from any point of view responsible for his act?—No. To Mr. Weston: He agreed there was no evidence of hereditary insanity in this case. “And that removes a very fruitful source of insanity in people I” “It does.” “In all cases of insanity that is the first thing you look for?” “Yes.” QUESTION OF INSANITY. He agreed that Dr. Sullivan, of the Broadmore Criminal Asylum, was one of tlie leading authorities on insanity. He had not seen Townsend since he was in prison on October 6, but at that time Townsend was insane. “In a legal sense?’’ asked His Honour. “In a medical sense.” There were no other grounds on which he based his opinion of insanity at the time of the act, said Dr. Walker. The evidence given by Smith of Townsend’s acts at the boarding-house on the evening of the tragedy showed mental instability. The delusions must bear a. certain weight. The evidence of Miss Patchel regarding the change of expression that transformed her attitude from confidence to intense alarm showed, in the doctor’s opinion, the onset of the impulse. The doctor mentioned Townsend’s repeated threats against his wife. A sane man would not talk in that manner, he considered. If he meant to murder it was unlikely he would say anything about his intention. This lack of iu-

tention was confirmed by his answer to the doctor on September 16, when he said he had not gone to the house with intent to murder, but to talk with his wife about his daughter. This fact was further confirmed by the evidence of Mrs.. Vickers and Miss Patchel that the conversation before the tragedy was mostly about Jean. In the doctor’s opinion, even if one were to feel there . was something in his threats, -this did not prevent an irresistible impulse. ■ “But that is not insanity,” said -His Honour. “If a man cannot realise' that the impulse is wrong?” “Ah, that is a different matter.” Townsend, said the doctor, was absolutely unconcerned about the future. Mr. Weston questioned whether Townsend did. hqye amnesia, or loss' of memory. He pointed out that Townsend told McPherson and Mallett lie had cut his wife’s throat. The doctor said this did not contradict his opinion. He was, at Waitara, still in a state of mania. He had not then regained his normal balance, as he had that evening, when he was absolutely' calm and collected. Further, shortly after the occurrence, he asKed the first man (Lapouple) from whom he could get definite tidings if his wife were dead. AMNESIA DISCUSSED. Mallett’s and McPherson’s evidence proved that he knew he ■ had cut her throat but not that he had killed her. Amnesia was not a common feature in sane people. There was a difference of opinion among the authoritieis on this point. He would not admit Townsend knew what he was doing at the time of the act. _ He thought Townsend, showed signs of a chronic, mild delusional dementia. Alcohol may have been the cause, but he did not say it was. The history of the case .suggested alcohol as the cause, but did not show it. There were not the physical signs of chronic alcoholic indulgence. Townsend was really a very fit man. He could not suggest any other cause than alcohol. He did not think that at the time of the tragedy drink had'any part in it. “Then what had a part in. it?” said His Honour.

“His state of mind, to which was added the impulse.” His opinion was that the act was actually the result of insanity.

To Mr. Moss: He still maintained that at the time of the act Townsend was insane from a legal and medical point, of view and he did not think Townsend had feigned amnesia after the.act with intent to-deceive. There was quite' a lot’ of evidence supporting the idea that Townsend considered himself persecuted; To His Honour: In forming his opinion as to the condition of the man at the time of the tragedy he had not paid regard to the fact that he said goodbye to his friends at the boarding-house the night of the .tragedy. “Do you not . regard that as of very great importance?” asked the judge. “Quite possibly it is,” said Dr. Walker. ■ . . ! “Do you regard as of any importance the fact that he took a loaded gun with him?” “I did not consider that. It is important.” “Now I put it to you, cannot you say it may be a question of great importance “I can.” “Do you regard as of great importance the facts that the gun was not taken to the Vickers’ house, but was left in the. street and, further, that he did his best to bring his wife out of the house?” “I did not connect the two.” MATTERS OF IMPORTANCE. “Can you not say these are matters of very great importance?” “There is that possibility.” “There are these four facts that you have not considered. Might not indicate that he had formed an intention to do the act, but not in the house?” “They may be quite consistent with such an intention; nevertheless these facts do not exclude the possibility of acute homicidal impulse.” “Do you appreciate the fact that acute homicidal impulse docs not conic within the legal definition of insanity!” “I think it ought to,” said the doc : tor. “Ah,” observed His Honour, “but you are not here to make the law any more' than I am. Do you recognise that acute homicidal impulse, per se, does not come within the legal definition of insanity?” “Yes'” “W’hen you take these facts into consideration, together with the fact that first thing next morning—before he was arrested or had heard from the police —he told Mallett and McPherson that he cut his wife’s throat, do not they affect your opinion?” “No, because the latter arose as part of his maniacal state.” • The doctor said he had considered the fact that Townsend had told witnesses they would “see it in the morning paper.” ’ And did he not think that showed a knowledge of what the man had done? asked the judge. “It showed a knowledge at the time,” said Dr. Walker. He admitted it was quite possible the state of mania existed before he left the boarding-house in the evening—it would, be present

mildly before the tragedy ■ and mildly afterwards. ■ -- ■ • - < The judge asked whether Townsend’s statement in prison that he was not worrying was consistent with his desire to, or his having made up his mind that he must end his life.' The doctor said it was quite possible. Dr. W. J. Reid, New Plymouth, said he had examined the accused in prison on September 16 in company with Dr. Walker. Townsend had seemed as though he were endeavouring to recall the details of a dream when questioned concerning the details of the crime. He seemed dazed, somewhat morose, and his eyes seemed to be glaring. His response to questions was very slow and often he did not make a direct response to the questions asked. He appeared to have no remorse in reply to questions about the murder. DIFFICULTY IN REMEMBERING. He seemed to have difficulty in remembering details of his actions before, during and after the crime. Asked whether he had taken a gun with him he had said. “No, what do I want a pun for’” Asked what- he had killed his wife with he said. “It must have been the knife; I found a knife in my pocket with blood, on it.” He had said there was no struggle, no screams, and he had seen no blood. He showed no concern, saying, “It doesn’t matter, better to hang me.” He wished he had shot himself. , - The doctor said he agreed with Dr. Walker’s evidence as to the terrible nature of the wounds. At the time of the interview Townsend seemed to be insane. His Honour: You mean from the medical point of view? “Yes,” said witness. He agreed that, the wound on the back of° the neck would have taken a few minutes, though possibly not so long as Dr. Walker had estimated. The colour of the wound at the back would indicate that it had been inflicted after the blood had ceased to circulate. Dr. George P. Adamson, Waitara, said he had been superintendent of gaols in India and chief medical officer. He had had -general experience in England as deputy police surgeon in Birmingham. He had also been appointed by the India' Office to take charge ot one of the Indian princes who was an alcoholic and suffered from delusional insanity. He had been in contact with him for three years. The daily average of criminals and lunatics under him in India was about 200.' TOWNSEND VISITS DOCTOR. Townsend had consulted him on January 20 last in his surgery, said the doctor. Townsend was in rather an excited condition, talking so that he could be heard all over the house and using expressions of language unusual from patients to doctors. The doctor asked him Jo sit down and he kept wandering about the consulting room, sometimes in' front of the doctor 5 and sometimes behind him iii a disconcerting- manlier. He thumped his chest and insisted that he was dying though he did not look in the least like a dying man. The doctor got him to sit down and asked him his name; he would not give it. He adopted a mysterious air and said he was at Waitara. In the course of conversation the doctor asked him what he was. Townsend, replied that lie was a retired farmer but now he was a labourer. On being pressed he .said he was at Waitara on business. He refused to say what his business was and made a great mystery of it. The doctor’s notes made at the time; stated that Townsend .looked like & . chr.onic.. alcoholic and insisted that was dying.' He thought that his lungs and drink were the cause-of. his trouble. He said his favourite drink was brandy and beer and. that he had twelve drinks a day and more at night. Hh had. the symptoms of alcoholism. He did. not seem right in the head and insisted that he was dying in spite of assurance to the contrary. Townsend was not drunk and not recovering from delirium tremens. His condition was not that simply • of a -man recovering from drink. There was "a thread running through his conversation and actions that seemed to. indf-c-i.e something more permanent. Is there anything in the evidence to indicate that there was insanity in the legal sense at the time the murder was committed? asked Mr, Moss.

The doctor said he had reason to believe that from the evidence and what he had observed at the interview Townsend was suffering from delusions of the ordinary standard type.,? Dr. Walker’s diagnosis that accused was suffering from chronic mild delusional dementia agreed with his own, said the doctor. The mental defect demanded alcohol and alcohol aggravated the defect. The condition of accused described by Dr. Walker and Dr. Reid in their examination suggested defect. There was one point in the medical evidence of which no explanation, had been given. That was the blimp on the 1 woman’s head. The man had been a farmer and may have knocked his wife on the head in an auto-motive action as he had done with animals. . - From Nurse Patchel’s evidence he had thought there must have been some strong internal action of the brain causin» a° violent impulse. He had known persons suffering from this disease to have violent impulses without warning including homicidal attack. MIGHT HAVE MOTIVE AND PLANS He agreed that an insane man might have motive and might lay plans. The plans laid by Townsend were quite consistent with the act of an insane man. The condition of Townsend as described by witness Smith reflected the conditions which the doctor had encountered in cases of the disease. • ■ / He considered that on the night of the murder he was suffering and impelled by disease of the mind. His actions showed he had an intention. The reason for the attack was an irresist- , ible impulse, superimposed upon his delusional insanity. The doctor considered Townsend was not aware of what he was doing at the time. Neither did he' believe that the accused knew he was acting in a wrongful manner. He agreed with the answers of Dr. Walker to questions formulated by Mr. Justice Chapman in the Goode case.

Cross-examined, Dr. Adamson Teaffirmed that Townsend at the time neither knew the nature of . the act nor that it was wrong. When Townsend broke the receiver of the' telephone he probably knew that he was doing it, but the doctor did not ,think the act would signify a knowledge of the difference between right and wrong.

“Doesn’t the act of breaking the receiver show that he knew he wanted to kill his wife?” asked Mr. Weston. “No.”

Counsel suggested Mrs. Townsend’s request that if he must kill her to kill her by shooting indicated an intention in that direction. “That statement was made by Mrs. Townsend, not her husband,” said the doctor, “it indicated only that Mrs. Townsend had an idea that she would eventually go that way. As a matter of fact she complained to me in Waitara on several occasions that lier husband would kill her,” continued the doctor.! “She said he carried a knife about for that purpose.”

Mr. Weston recalled that after Mrs. Townsend asked her hueband to shoot her rather than use a kniie, as she would rather go that way, Townsend had replied: “Shoot you? What do 1 want to shoot you for?” She said: ‘I •would rather go that way if you please.” Counsel suggested this indicated Townsend realised what he was going to do. DID NOT KNOW RIGHT OR WRONG i The doctor maintained, however, that such was not the conclusion to be come to. When Townsend said “I am a dead man now” he might have realised at ■ the moment what he had done. .His return to his wife and the further cutting of the neck might have been & further part of the impulse. He did not think Townsend then appreciated the difference between right and wrong, in view of the diseased condition of his brain. Alcohol and insanity often went hand in hand, but there was usually some other assisting cause of insanity. He agreed alcohol was sometimes the cause of criminal acts. Chronic alcoholism interfered with a man’s judgment. It might act on the subject' in such a way as to increase the intensity oi suspicions; the subject’s reasoning powers being affected, he would be less able to analyse them. Witness considered Townsend’s suspicions about his wife’s chastity were based on a the same remark applied to Townsenci’s suspicions about Latham having done him harm. This concluded the case for the defence, whereupon Mr. Weston called evidence in rebuttal of the plea of insanity. Thomas Cracroft Fookes, retired solicitor, said he acted for Latham at Stratford for a great many years and handled the dealings in connection with the Lowgarth farm. ■ Mr. Moss objected to this evidence on the ground that it was not in rebuttal of insanity. Fookes said there was a, misunderstanding with Townsend over the occupancy of the farm, but not a vary serious one.. Townsend and his wife occupied the place, but Latham maintained they had not complied with some of the conditions. Eventually the farm was made over to Townsend, a small sum being left on mortgage, which Townsend ultimately paid. This evidence was ruled out by His Honour. . \ * • DR. WILLIAMS’ EVIDENCE. Dr. John Williams, medical superintendent of the Porirua hospital, said he had been directly connected with the study and treatment of mental diseases for seven years. He had been a lecturer on the subject at Otago University. He saw a r-reat deal of minor mental trouble *in outside work. At Porirua he had 1540 patients under him.,He had specialised in mental diseases. ' . He had seen Townsend on the evening of September 18. He saw him three further times in Wellington,, on September 28, November 5 and November 12. At no time did the accused' to his mind evince signs of insanity. “In coming to this conclusion,” said the doctor, “I have taken into account the story told me by the accused and the evidence of the case.” ' . ■ Towpsend, said the doctor, seemed always to have been a man, of spspicipus and truculent temperament. He had always had a feeling that he would not like to have anything put over him ' and had looked for this attitude on the part of others. The first instance of that temperament fwere the circumstances connected with his marriage. Fel-l-lowing his marriage .domestic .relations were not the happiest. The presence of : his father-in-law at his home, the fact that his wife’s deformity precluded her from taking an active part in farm work were all factors which served to stimulate his somewhat truculent nature. Eventually the farm was sold and the accused went to live at Hamilton, leaving his .wife and daughter with Latham./ ■ ■ At Hamilton he 'began to drink too heavily, for it so happened that alcohol had the specific action in a certain type of drinker of causing him to be suspicious, cantankerous and truculent. Obviously the natural truculence in the man would become more marked. Townsend became generally known as moody ahd' : Drinkers as a whole were • divided roughly into two classes —the convivial-, and the industrial. The convivial drink-.

er was the one who had an occasional burst, got drunk and- staggered home. It Was rare indeed for a man of that class to commit one of the graver crimes, particularly homicide. Townsend was not of that class. He was an industrial drinker—one of those who were continually having nips, not much at the time, perhaps, but totalling a lot in. a day. That resulted in the system becoming sodden with alcohol. EFFECTS OF ALCOHOL. The specific effect' of alcohol in this form of drinking was to cause some loss of control in the higher feeling—to cause a man to become truculent, impolite and moody. There was also an effect on. the digestion and on the nerves. Such a man, said Dr. Williams, was inclined to be particularly obnoxious in his own home and show complete lack of consideration for the feelings of his wife and those closely connected. He would be the cause of unhappiness at home and in causing this would suffer unhappiness. He had much time to think about things and while in drink his control of his feelings would be lessened with the result that he; would be inclined to talk to all and sundry if the subject of his family Was raised by someone well known. Naturally his jesentment at times would be such that he felt like killing them. He actually diet threaten this and it would be noted that the instrument he suggested was a pocket knife he always carried in his pocket and which was readily producible. His wife went to live at Hamilton With him for a time, but affairs were again unhappy, so three years ago he left there and returned to New Plymouth. For the first part of this. period Townsend remarked that he did not drink so much and felt very much better. MacPherson had remarked on his better health and conduct. "Then early in 1.930,” said the doctor, "ho came to Grand Vue with £4OO and began to drink and spend money. It was noted that his conduct there was at times peculiar but really it was only that of the chronic “soaker.” He was cantankerous, as hfessenger said. When doing nothing and brooding his feelings of resentment occupied most of his somewhat limited field of thought. He was unfortunate in having limited education. He reached standard 4 at ths age of 14 and then left to work on lonely farms. MONEY NEARLY ALL GONE. *Tn September Townsend began to realise that his money was nearly all gone. He had recourse to alcohol, sobered up again after a Mew days, and then took stock of his financial-position somewhere about September 11, and made arrangements for the allocation mqney; as he> had leffc..

“On Friday and Saturday, September 12 and 13, he drank very heavily. On Sunday he did not have quite so much and visited the hospital with some flowers for a little girl and promised an old lady friend that he would come on Monday, to mow her lawn.” Up to that, time the doctor could not be quite sure that Townsend had any real planned intention of killing his wife. “His thoughts were rather vague and such threats. as he had made were stimulated largely by alcohol and the presence of the pocket knife in his pocket.” He should mention, said the doctor, that his resentment was strongly directed by his lack of home life. There he was at the end of his money, his wife inimical, worried about his daughter and her control. What was he to do?

“It is then, on Monday morning I think,” said the doctor, “that Townsend first conceived the plan of shooting his wife with the gun where it had lain in his trunk tor 18 months.” His. Honour: Is that what he told you? “Yes,” said the doctor. “He was not going to shoot her if he could effect a'‘settlement.”

On Monday morning he met his daughter and his wife, the daughter stopping to talk but his wife walking by, a cifcumstance which would increase his truculence, which had been fanned already by alcohol. He had more drinks and the doctor gathered that all day he drank heavily. , 'At 7 o’clock he went to the Grand Vue and his actions there appeared to tfie doctor to have been characteristically those of a man at least, moderately affected by alcohol and inclined to be cantankerous, His thoughts were probably not clear' when he left the house but the purpose in his mind and, predominantly so, was to'see hjs wife at all costs, to try and effect a settlement and if possible make a new start to- ■ ' “He was not • very hopeful of that really,” continued the doctor, “and took the' gun with the intention, I believe, of. shooting his wife ” . His Honour: Is that your opinion or did'he tell you? “He really told me,” said the doctor, “blit I would rather add ‘I believe’ — with the intention of shooting his wife and. then, himself if his plan failed.

THWARTED IN HIS DESIRE.' “He did not have much luck in finding her quickly but persisted in the way characteristic of one in liquor, accepting no rebuff to achieve his purpose which, I believe, was' ; to get Mrs. Townsend to come and talk with himself and Jean over present and future affaii's.. .- , . “He was continually being thwarted in his desire,. and his natural resentment was difficult to control, but he managed to do so until the visit to the sitting room at 2 a.m. “I may say here,” said the doctor, "that the mood of one under the influence of alcohol is very unstable. His reactions tend to be violent, even homicidal. An incident which would cause a‘.sober man merely a passing annoyance may provoke in a man in liquor a violent attack. An example is Townsend’s conduct in the hotel at Hamilton. - ' “Even when he came into, the room at Vickers’ ”, said the doctor, “I do not think he had the intent to kill. He was feeling very fed up and was in a state akin to that he suffered - at the, hotel in Hamilton. : Nurse Patchel remarked ■ that a change came over, his face. 1 It, probably did, and was an indication that'one of these violent crises associated with alcoholics was about to return. It is’ a matter of hypothesis wh’at ' was the stimulus to the state, but I ain inclined to think it was his wife’s laughing at the joke about the umbrella. “Seeing her laughing, there broke the last-thread of.self-control. He advanced upon her with the intention of cutting her throat. Thinking he had completed hie work he left to - go away but at the door he found she was still alive.' Resentment-and anger surged up still-further, he became in a state of blind rage, and said, TH fix you.’ PUT OFF THE MOMENT. ' ’“His work finished; he realised what he had done, became frantic’and rushed -away to where his gun was secreted.But his first plan of shooting had gone by'the'board, the sequence was upsetand he did not have the purpose of killing himself left.' I think he was frightened to shoot himself. He put off the moment by thinking, “I’ll go and clean the rest up.” “He obviously knew he had done wrong because ho expected the policeto ;take ‘him. He told me he expected the police'in a motor-car to pick him up at any , time while he was on the road to Waitara.” His statements at Waitara showed that he knew he had attacked his wife and probably killed her, but no man under the influence of drink as Townsend was at the time of the tragedy could be expected to remember the details of an act committed under such violent emotional stress. It would be remembered that Townsend became very excited after only three drinks. ■ The people w,ho saw him thought he was in liquor and that was due to- (1) he had been under violent emotional stress; (2) he had had no sleep all night; (3) he was whiskysoaked and the effect of two or three drinks would act as a match to petrol. “I do not consider that he suffered, from any mental disorder,” said the doctor. “His symptoms in general were those characteristic of the eoaker; his crime was the characteristic act of the soaker; he was not insane in the legal sense when he committed it, for although it may be possible that for a second or so he did not know what he was doing, he knew what he was intending to do, he knew it was wrong, and both when it was half completed and when it was finished he knew he had done wrong., He was stimulated to coine back the .second time against- his judgment through his extreme rage.” A further point was that the nature of the second and greater mood was not unusual in cases of drunken reaction. To Mr. Moss: He knew, that Crown witnesses said he carried his liquor well —well for the class of drinker he was. Alcohol would be inclined to affect his better feelings, or manner, without affecting his legs. He would be inclined to be more cantankerous and less pleas-, ant in' company than a “convivial” drinker. - “There is no -evidence that he had liquor after 7 p.m. that day,” said Mr. Moss. ASSUMED A GREAT DEAL. “T have had to assume a great deal,” said the doctor. “Townsend told me things that have not come out in evidence.” He said that if Townsend had had liquor before 7 o’clock it would affect him for six or seven hours, until he had had sleep, especially if he were under great stress. “Is that your personal opinion?” asked counsel.

“My personal experience.” The whole circumstances were those characteristic of a person affected by alcohol and not a mental disease with which Townsend might be associated. It was quite consistent with Townsend being a heavy drinker that he should react to three beers at Waitara. ( He had had. no sleep, had walked from:

New Plymouth, was wet through and had cut a woman's throat; he was unbalanced. To His Honour: Fatigue would have an appreciable affect on him. To Mr. Moss: The actions noticed by Smith were not unusual in a sane man whose moodiness was brought on by indulgence in alcohol. “If these depressive moods were, duo to drink alone, is it not unusual’ to find them over a. period of seven or eight years?” eaid Mr. Moss. ‘ . .“Not at all. It is a specific reaction to alcohol.' It would be unusual if you did not find it.” “"Would the existence of an idea, that his friends thought him mad show sanity?”“The idea would have blossomed in symptoms that, should have, been apparent by now.” “The question of whether the man is sane or insane is purely a matter of opinion?” “Entirely.” ■ ■ . “And you respect the opinions of the other medical.,men?■?’ “Yes, but I could name, points on which I disagree with them.” Witness said he could 'not recall any case in which a sane man had killed more than one person-. “I .put it to you that it would be extremely unusual?” said counsel. “Undoubtedly.” When,' continued the doctor, he had said the intention' to visit the Huses was formed after injuring Mrs. Townsend he was expressing his own opinion. Townsend may have told him, but he could not be sure.

WHEN WAS INTENTION FORMED?

“And when,” said Mr. .Moss, “do .you say he formed the intention to go out and commit these massed murders?” Di’. Williams said that in his opinion Townsend had previously formed a .halfformed intention in this direction.' “Theu'. r ptodpcOL case of a sane man . committing.,.,gi_oi^.than one murder,” said Mr.'"Moss.'“You are driven to that.”

Each case had to be dealt with on its merits, according to individual circumstances, said the doctor.

“You placed great reliance on the change of facial expression noticed by Miss Patchel ?” said counsel. “Not necessarily.” Dr. Williams admitted bliss Patchel must have known then that Townsend intended to kill. , ,

“Up to that moment she and Mrs. Vickers would have been prepared to let Mrs. Townsend go in a taxi with him ?” suggested counsel. “Yes.” “Does ■it not show, in their opinion, his calm state up to that point?” “Yes.” “He told you his intention. was to kill with the gun ?” “Yes.”

“He did not have the gun in the house.- Why do you think he didn’t intend to kill when he went to the house ?”

The doctor said he had already explained that. Townsend went in with the intention of having a settlement. He failed to obtain this. She would not go with him and something upset him. Replying to a further question the doctor said he considered Mrs. Townsend’s laughing at something he said upset him. In reply to a question witness said he could not conceive a. true maniac acting similarly in similar circumstances. Apart from persons affected by alcohol the only other class of person likely to act similarly was an epileptic. . “TEMPORARY SEIZURE.” , It was possible, for a . temporary period, for insanity to seize upon a single faculty of the mind, but in such case it would be likely to extend. In view of the history of the case it was possible but not probable that Townsend was insane at the time of the act; but extremely improbable in-the light' of witness’ experience. “Is it not possible in such! a ease for the person to become sane again afterwards?’’ . “Possible, but not with' chronic alcoholism.” ■ • ■ • ■ ■ He could ■ not say why Townsend took- 20 ca rtridges.' Possibly he ' bought a packet .and put them in his pocket. Counsel asked why Townsend had taken’ 20 cartridges with him if he intended to kill one person only. He suggested that if they/had all been used to commit massed murder the doctor would have been compelled to say the man was insane.

The witness said he would rather be non-committal on that.’point. Indifference and other- things mentioned by Taylor in his text book were consistent with-sanity or insanity, but in the present circumstances he did not think- they were consistent with insanity.’- ■ ■ ' •

'To Mr. Weston:. He considered Townsend’s altered decision not to shoot himself after killing his wife had been made because he was afraid to kill himself. Instead he had postponed the matter and decided to go on to shoot the Lathams first.

Did he appreciate that a person might be suffering from drunkenness to such an extent as to bo incapable of forming an intent? asked His Honour.

“Yes.” Had he considered in the light of all the circumstances and from the information he had whether such a thing would be possible in this case? “I have,” replied the doctor, “and I don’t think there is such a possibility.” NELSON EXPERT’S OPINIONS.

Dr. H. E. Jeffreys, medical superintendent of the Nelson mental hospital, stated that he had spent the greater part of his life as an. alienist. He had been 25 years in mental hospitals either as assistant-medical officer or superintendent. He had worked at four mental hospitals in New Zealand and two in'England. Some years ago he'was lecturer to the students at Otago University oh mental Every man who was drunk, said the doctor, was strictly speaking insane at the time. Therefore, in that sense the accused was insane .at the time he committed the deed, but insane in that sense alone. To His Honour: It did not follow that in such a .state a man could not form ah intent. ’ Mercier, who had been quoted by counsel for the defence, was very emphatic that every man who was drunk was',- at' the moment,- insane, continued the witness.- . In ■ using. the word-insane in that connection he was using, it in a very-wide sense. ■_ ■ ■ ; He had been called late in the .case and- had been able to examine Townsend only' twice, said the doctor.- Prior to seeing him he .knew very little about the case so he entered into it with as unbiassed-a mind as possible. “Although I could find no evidence of insanity in the accused during the two occasions when I saw him I nevertheless told the Crown Prosecutor that should I hear anything in the evidence that would satisfy me that the accused was- insane at the time of the committal of the act I should not hesitate to, say so,” said witness. When he had examined Townsend he was at first re-

sentful as he was rather sick of being interviewed by medical men. After a time he became quite free in his statements about the tragedy. One thing he said was: “My daughter told lies. She said that when I came home drunk 1 threatened to blow her mother's brains out and she said that I had said it was only a matter of time.” Then Townsend went on to say: “And her mother's name was never mentioned. They got Stanton to swear that I had threatened Latham that a big black cloud was hanging over them.” The doctor had watched Townsend when Stanton was giving his evidence; he emphatically shook his head, Another* thing lie noticed was that practically all the witnesses said these threats had been made when Townsend had been drinking and it was quite possible that he did not realise afterwards that he had made the threats. He could appreciate Dr. Adamson and Dr Walker thinking the man’s condition over a number of years was indicative of insanity. “I wanted to think so myself,” said the doctor, “but on hearing all the evidence I could- not reconcile these conditions with any known form of insanity. PARANOIA . RARE DISEASE. “Dr. Walker mentioned that in his opinion accused was suffering from chronic mild delusional dementia. Frankly I don’t quite understand what he means by that. If it is mild delusional insanity one would hardly expect such a case . to commit. homicide. Paranoia has been mentioned. True paranoia was now recognised by most authorities, as a comparatively rare disease of systematised . insanity. That meant that the delusions were knit together' as a whole and formed a motive power for conduct. Yet he- had found over a long experience that doctors and people who worked in asylums had a sort of sixth sense. He said it in all humility, but one knew instinctively whether a person was sane or not. They knew by intuition. He had never been mistaken in this for many years. He had known cases in which at first he had not been able to detect insanity but had felt they were insane. In a few days delusions had manifested themselves and he found he was right. “In this case.,”. said the doctor, “the accused appeared to be a perfectly sane man. Thotigh in the evidence he ex-

pressed no remorse, he did so to me. He said to me, ‘I am sorry but the thing is done, it has been done in a drunken state. . If I had had no drink in me it would never have happened. When I am sober I would never hurt a fly. It' was the whisky.’ And then,” continued the doctor, “Townsend said which seemed to be very remarkable. He said, ‘But why should a man put the blame on to the whisky when he knows how it affects him and that he should not touch it.’ ” “AN ALCOHOLIC FRENZY.” “My opinion is,” said the doctor; “that the accused committed this crime in a state of alcoholic frenzy.” “Was he so drunk,” asked Mr. Weston, “that at the time he was incapable of forming any intention to do the act?” “No, I do not think so,” replied the doctor. “Did he know the nature and quality of the act?” “There is no doubt in my mind that he knew what he was doing and knew that it was wrong.” “When did he make this statement about the drink?” asked Mr. Moss. ■ “On November 12, the first time I saw him,” said the doctor. “He made no other attempt to excuse himself except for mentioning the drink ?” “No.” “When you saw him he knew the woman was dead?” “Yes.” ' “You will admit that in such a complex matter as insanity there is room for honest differences of opinion?” “Yes.” “You do not suggest that there has been the slightest attempt to feign insanity on the part of this man ? “No.” ■“You have noticed from the evidence that every time he complained of the similar group of alleged wrongs? asked counsel. “Yes.”

“And this grouping of wrongs is typical of this chronic delusional insanity known as paranoia ?” “That is so,” said the doctor. Mr. Weston: Have you had any difficulty in dismissing the possibility of paranoia and of • the suggested delusions? . . “No the delusions are characteristic of an alcoholic.” His Honour said it would be advisable to take the adjournment at this stage and continue the case next morning, rather than go on into that evening. It would hardly be fair if Mr. Moss had to give his address to the jury that evening and Mr. Weston gave his next morning.