GUILTY OF WIFE MURDER

Taranaki Daily News, 21 November 1930, Page 9

GUILTY OF WIFE MURDER

' SENTENCE OF DEATH PASSED

CONCLUSION OF TOWNSEND CASE-

SUMMING-UP BY CHIEF JUSTICE

Sentence of death was passed yesterday by the Chief Justice, Sir Michael- Myers, upon Alexander Townsend, found guilty by a jury of twelve of the murder of his wife, Cora Alice Townsend, at FitzVoy on September 16. The jury brought in its verdict after a retirement of two hours and a-quarter. The trial lasted three and a-half days. , -

There was a large crowd in court during yesterday’s proceedings and, by the afternoon, the court room was tightly packed, After the evidence of one more witness had been called in the morning by the Crown in rebuttal of the defence counsel for the defence, Mr. L. M. Moss, began his address to the jury after quarter past ten. After he had spoken for an hour and 20 minutes the Crown Prosecutor, Mr., C. H. Weston, addressed the jury for 39 minutes. The Chief Justice then summed up, expounding the law to the jury for an hour an seven minutes.

THE FINAL PROCEEDINGS JURY RETURNS ITS VERDICT. I > —rJUDGE PASSES THE SENTENCE. The jury retired at and had first to go to luncheon. At twenty minutes to four a constable came in and announced that the jury had prepared its verdict. Townsend was brought into th > z dock and -at 3.43 the jury filed into the courtroom. Townsend stood in the dock with his eyes cast down. As the jury entered he. looked first at the foreman and then at the judge. He still maintained the composure he had shown throughout the hearing. ■ “Have you agreed on a unanimous verdict?” asked the registrar. “Yes,” said the foreman. ■ “Do you find the prisoner guilty or not guilty?” . “Guilty.” ’ < .'“So say.you all?” “Yes,” replied the other jurymen. Asked whether, he had anything to say Townsend shifted slightly on his feet, remained silent and looked at the judge, whd had put on the black cap. “Oyez! Oyez!” called the court crier, crying that he should hearken to the sentence. ■ Speaking vAry ' slowly in a quiet, distinct- voice, His Honour said: “Prisoner at the bar, you have been found guilty of. the crime oi murder, and there is only one sentence this Court can pass upon you—that you be taken to a place of imprisonment and then to a place of execution and that you.be then hanged by the neck until you aw- dead.” There was pilence and then tyie prisoner bent his head slightly to the Bench and stepped down from the dock.-- His lips moved and, almost inaudibly, he was heard by some to say “Very nice indeed.”

.“Gentlemen of the jury,” said His Honour. “You have had a very unpleasant task. T have to thank you on behalf of, the country for your services. You have beep... kept away from your ..homes every night and shut in for three and a dia l f days. I have instructed the sheriff that you shall be exempt for the next two years from jury service.” • .For half an hour nearly 200 .people waited\>utside the Court after the sentence had been passed waiting to see Townsend escorted to prison.

Recalled by Mr. C. H. Weston when the case was resumed in the morning. Di - . G. H. Thomson, New Plymouth, said, that he 'was able to give medical proof that Mr& Townsend was alive at the time the dorsal wound was inflicted. Jri his post mortem finding he had said that the whole body was absolutely bloodless with the exception of . the veins around the brain, which -were congested. That-condition could only take place during life, and it occurred in this way: When the head was forcibly held down and one strove with all one’s might to lift it the blood rushed tc one’s face and head and the veins of the forehead, and the brain became overfull with dark blood. iThis the doctor maintained was exactly what happened. The woman’s arms prevented her from forcing her body up, but she strained to lift her head and Townsend bumped it down again arid again—the noises were heard —and the bruise could only have been caused before death. . The external jugular vein was cut by the front wound, but not the internal jugular vein, added the doctor. “So there is a difference of opinion between you and Dr. Walker ae to whether the woman' was dead before the wound at the back was inflicted?’ asked Mr. Moss, “Yes.” His Honour: Was Dr. Walker present at the post mdrtem? “No.” His Honour: Had he been present at the post-mortem and seen the condition of the veins of the brain could he have formed the opinion he did? “No, not in my opinion.” COUNSEL ADDRESSES JURY. This concluded the evidence and Mr. L. M. Moes commenced his address to the jury. “To every reflective mind,” said Mr. Moss, “nothing is more striking than the conduct of a trial of this nature where there are such high issues -t stake. Our British institutions have set a high standard. There is a judge fairly holding, the balance, a jury calm and dispassionate and the very fair presentation of the case by the Crown. The grave issues in the case were not referred to a board of experts, Mr. Moss continued. The law recognised that the fate of man in thoise cases muet be' determined by twelve of his fellows, who would determine, not in a narrow, specialist way but in a broad, general way his guilt or his innocence. The law had always thrown round the insane a protection which, said counsel, he could claim in the case

before'them. If after a sane .consideration of their duty and realising the awful issues now in their hands the jury decided that they must pronounce a verdict of guilty, then of course they would not hesitate.

The complexity of the issues was shown by the fact that the two skilled alienists for the Crown held one honest opinion and two skilled practitiond ers—Dr. Walker with 35 years’ experience and Dr. Adamson with 39 years’ 1 experience—held another opinion. The J honest difference of opinion showed the o complexity of the ease; showed that, as o the Crown Prosecutor had said in his opening address, “You cannot open a s man’s mind, you can only form an 1 opinion.” a There were some people who thought e that any occurrence of human life could t be accounted for. But the greatest thinkers were those who realised how s little was known' of all that went on inside the human brain. Their verdict must be definite, they had reached the r • stage where they must make up their minds. In a few minutes the responsibility would pass from him to them and must be theirs alone. ) THE LAW ON INSANITY. > ! Tlie law laid down that in cases of . murder if they find traces of insanity , they/were to acquit the prisoner. He i would not go free but would be detained during the pleasure of the Minister of Justice. One section of the Act said that everyone should be presumed to 'be sane until the contrary was proved. And then it said no peri son should bo convicted of sucli an act ■ when labouring under a disease or imbecility of the mind to such an extent . as not to know the nature of what he was doing 1 and not to know that he was doing wrong. With regard to delusion, Qio’ lgw stated that a. person labouring under delusions but in other respects sane should be acquitted of -flact only if he believed' in such a state , of things which, if it had existed, would have justified his act. 1 ‘‘On that point,” said counsel, “I submit'the section does not apply because we have established general insanity. “Look carefully at the nutn,” he said. “Consider the evidence of poor education, knowledge add lack of early training on the temperament which caused his solicitor to describe him as a solitary man. There 'was a development of loneliness and a slow development of moods. “Then we pass to the time when an unfortunate marriage took place, with the handicap of his nature, and the added terrible handicap of a poor, crippled woman. Did that affect him? Would it affect a man like this who was attached to his home and had never had a happy life? It was never a happy marriage. “Dr. Williams put it down to drink., Cannot you.go beyond where the doctor went; cannot you go behind that?” asked counsel. “What caused him to depend on drink; What disease of the mind ? UNHAPPINESS OF' HIS LIFE. “There was then his life at Lowgarth eight years ago. The unhappiness and the drinking were contemporaneous. I suggest that they had an effect on that man’s mentality. Then he moved to Hamilton and there this unhappiness reached a critical stage and with it the drink had reached a critical stage. , The home is sold and he comes to New Plymouth. Indeed, he is a lonely man here.” His wife and daughter were in the’ •

same town and the suggestion that he was brutalised was negatived by hie affection for the girl. Dr. Williams had agreed that Townsend did genuinely desire a reconciliation with his wife. It W'as not a settlement in the sense af settling her or shooting her that Townsend desired, but a settlement of their differences and a reconciliation. “I submit to you that in this case the extreme to which this man was pressed or to which lie imagined he was pressed had the effect of creating a real belief in his mind that he was a persecuted man. ’ Whether he was badly treated or not —and one could hardly imagine a crippled woman treating him as he imagined he was treated—whatever it was it was clear that he imagined a state of wrongs far in excess of the facts. “When this feeling boils over he tells Stanton the same things, the same ‘group of imagined wrongs’ as Dr. Jeffreys said, as he told the other doctors. He" .goes to the house and tells them ’to O’Donnell. I want you to remember what he told O’Donnell, because the story comes out in the coherent sequence, the very words that Dr. Jeffreys used. Iszthat the mark of a sane mind?;’’ EVIDENCE OE OBSERVERS. In January, 1030, Townsend’s demeanour was such as to convince. Dr. Adamson that the man “was not right

in his head.” The doctor saw he was a chronic alcoholic but saw, too, that there was something else. It was strange that another trained observer, W. W. Smith, had noticed something peculiar about that man and had devoted his time to watching him at the boarding-house in the daytime. Was it likely that a trained observer like Smith would watch at that length the — antics of a drunken boarder?

"This is important,” said counsel, ‘’because you cannot look into this man’s mind. Smith did it in the way that Mercier says, because a disordered mind exhibits itself in disordered conduct. What was the struggle going on in that brain? I suggest that what Smith saw was that man’s last struggle of resistance against this impulse which was swelling up in him against the wrongs which he thought he suffered. "Dome to the day before the murder. It is clear he had been drinking but, on the Crown’s evidence, he was not drunk. Yet Dr. Jeffreys says in hie opinion it was an act done in alcoholic frenzy. In the opinion of other doctors that was not an act of an alco; holic frenzy; it was the act of a maniac who did not know what he was doing.

"Come to the night before, when he was leaving , the house. - Here is a man who has been a favourite with the ■boarders and the children. It will be held by the Crown that his acts were due to the fact that he had made up his mind to commit murder, and not only the murder of his wife but of others, with a shotgun and 20 cartridges. And the Crown having taken up that line must take the consequences of it. If he had committed that wholesale murder which, for some reason was not carried out, he would have committed the act of an insane man. ‘‘GOING TO SWIM TO SYDNEY.” Counsel drew attention to Townsend’s conduct. hi leaving the boarding-house and hfs remarks to the others. Then hA'Went over to Smith and shook hands ■with him. To Smith again he seemed peculiar. Smith, who although not an alienist but a trained observer and a fine old gentleman, said Townsend was non compos mentis. If they were. to believe the Crown they were to find that was simply the effect of drink. Yet Smith had seen him under the in, fluence of drink many times before. “I am going to swim to Sydney,” said Townsend. Was that simply due to drink? Duffil remembered a queer lok in his eyes. Would Duffil have remembered the look if it was only the look he had often seen in his eyes when he was drunk? He had cross-examined Dr. Williams as to the man’s intention, said counsel. It was quite clear he had an intention to commit murder. Dr. Williams thought it was formed when he took the gun out of the trunk. But was it for the wife or was it for the Lathams and the Huses? If it was for the wife—and they would recall his statement, "Shoot you! Why should I want to shoot you?”—-Why take 20 cartridges? "You do not talie 20 cartridges if you are a big. strapping- man going to kill a crippled woman. This man, I submit, had run amok. He was going to commit wholesale murder. The Crown c - collapses there. This is the point which establishes that Townsend was an insane man. “You can’t imagine,” said counsel, "a man arming himself to the teeth fvr the purpose of shooting one poor, crippled woman. There were four ’visits to the house. He saw the woman at about ten o’clock; the act was not committed till nearly three. Would they think of that in forming their verdict? Where the gun was could only be conjectured. He wanted her to "make it up.” The intention of .murder limited to one woman went by the board. WOMEN NOT AFRAID OF HIM. » What was his state of mind when he first reached the house? Were the women afraid of him? There was no violent look in the eyes, no look that there would be in the eyes of a potential murderer. Why did Miss Patehel and Mrs. Townsend not see it? He was not a potential murderer and that was why they did not see it. Otherwise they could have gone in between his visits for help to a neighbour. The Crown said that at seven o’clock Townsend had the intent to commit murder. If he had it at seven he had it at ten, eleven and one o’clock. "I put it to you that he had no such intention,” said Mr. Moss. “His brain broke down at twenty minutes to three, “Try to see the occurrences in that room! There were the wife and Nurse Patchell, who had settled down for the night, and they had settled down for the night after - three visits from a man who, the Crown said, had murder in his heart. Yet those three people were so satisfied with his condition that two of the women suggested that Mrs. Townsend should leave with him in a taxi. It was only from those facts, only from conduct that they could .ee the working of the brain. "Townsend came in quietly through the French windows, leaned with his hands on the back of the chair and talked to them. There was not murder in the man’s mind—just the opposite. He desired a reconciliation. One must go on the facts at the time. How could the opinion of doctors afterwards overtop the facte that existed at the time of the act? If Mrs. Townsend Lad goaded him, then the Crown theory would have weight. She did not. She asked him to take off his coat, an act of womanly consideration.” The old bundle of troubles was in the brain and something made it surms up again. There was a joke about the umbrella, a joke at which not only Mis. Townsend 'laughed but at which “we all laughed.” At that point Dr. Williams’ theory broke down again. If Mrs. Townsend alone had laughed and jeered at him, then there would have been aggravation. There might have been something in Dr. Williams’ theory if only Mrs. Townsend had laughed. “Is the fact that they all laughed,” asked counsel, “to be put seriously to a jury of Englishmen as the cause which made him break out as he did? The frenzy was so violent—an insane, not an alcoholic frenzy—was bo sudden and so terrifying that it caused Nurse Patchel bo rush out for assistance. Townsend and his wife followed her. At that time he was stark raving mad. He tore down the telephone, went into die sitting room and the whole thing was over between twenty to three and ten to three.’’ ' “I’M A DEAD MAN NOW.”

Something had been made of the L. t that Townsend knew what had been done when he said: “I’m a dead man now.” Insanity might be a matter of a very short time. The suddenness of the attack was terrifying. They had the opinion of Dr. Walker that in 35 years’ experience he had never seen such wounds. The woman was dead or nearly dead; yet he returned and carved out in a maniacal fashion the wounds in the back of the neck, taking from three to eight minutes. “You are asked to believe that when he did that he was a sane man,” eaid counsel. “Had there been nothing else in the case but the mere nature of th/- —*. t kava asserted that

when Townsend did these things he was a raving lunatic, he did not know what he was doing and did not know that what he had done was wrong.” He had said, “I’m a dead man.” He had said that to Dr. Adamson months before. Could they imagine any normal man cutting the body and going, back to commit those maniacal wounds. Next morning he realised that he had attacked his wife but did not know she was dead. Could any sane man have inflicted those wounds and not know she was dead? ’ There was evidence by the > Crown that he had said to McPherson, "I have killed a woman.” Yet twice afterwards he had asked, “Is she dead?” Was that the question of a sane man? With O’Donnell Townsend had gone through the same delusions in the same order, the same systematised order of delusions that existed in the brain of a paranoic. Then, on the night of the murder Dr. Walker tested the mind and found a loss of recent memory. If he had been drunk there would have been that loss of recent memory. But the Crown did not show he was drunk. In Dr. Walker’s opinion amnesia demonstrated insanity. Townsend’s mind whenthe doctors saw him was struggling to remember. There was no attempt at concealment. “Swing, I must swing, he said, and then, “Is she dead? Seventy years ago, said counsel, confident opinions were expressed on insanity and to-day who was going to say whether they had reached the age-when alienists could say definitely that a man was sane or insane ? RELIED ON SIXTH SENSE. Dr.' Jeffreys had admitted by his reference to the sixth sense that doctors relied on more than actual knowledge. In cases sent to him for observation he could occasionally see nothing of insanity. Was not that an admission by the doctor that he could not put his on definite authority which should be done when a man stood on trial for his life? - „ x . Dr. Jeffreys did not make that examination on the night of the murder; he did not make it till Townsend had been away from liquor for two months. That man’s condition did undergo, and must have undergone by then, a great change. The intention to commit murder, if there was any intention in the man, was to commit wholesale murder. They must take it as one intention. They could not say in one part of his brain he had the intention to commit the murder of his wife, and in another part to commit the murder of the Lathams and the Huses. . . The only point the jury had. to decide was whether he was sane or insane, in the legal sense, at the time he committed the murder. There was no attempt to escape, no attempt to feign insanity which was a mark of the insane man. “Of all the works of God,” said counsel, “the one we know least about is. the human brain. Every minute of our lives we see things ordered in some way, we do not know how. But 1 when that order breaks down we have to rely only on conjecture and opinion. The responsibility of this man’s defence now passes from me to you. I know you will give it grave consideration.” CROWN PROSECUTOR’S ADDRESS. In this case, said Mr. Weston, in opening his address, the jury was relieved of deciding whether there was homicide or not. There was no doubt he killed the woman, that not being denied. Counsel pointed out that a verdict of insanity would mean that Townsend would be in the asylum at the pleasure of the Governor-in-Council and be released only on the decision of the whole executive. The sudden change in Townsend’s demeanour heralded, according to the doctors, the onset of the impulse to kill. The question was what was the cause of that impulse—drink or insanity? That was the rock on which the doctors split. Drs; Williams and Jeffreys said it was drink; Drs. Walker and Adamson said it was insanity. The first two doctors were devoting their whole lives to the determination’of these matters. Dr. Williams was in charge of 1500 mental patients and.counsel understood the average admission to Porirua was one a day. Dr. Jeffreys was in a similarly advantageous position as an alienist. Would such men as these, knowing what mental disease meant, metaphorically kick a man when he was down, or a blind man? No. Perhaps, he continued, he should not have mentioned such a thing as this because it could not be doubted that the opinion of such disinterested men of standing was honest. Referring to the evidence, Mr. Weston pointed out that the Crown said the cause of this homicidal impulse was drink. In favour of that it had to be admitted there was a drink history. Dr. Adamson had noticed this when lie examined Townsend at Waitara in January, 1930. He had on that occasion told the doctor his favourite drink was a mixture of beer and brandy, and that he had about 12 drinks a day, and more at night. CAUSE OF THE CONDUCT. Authorities held that drink was the cause of wrong conduct more than of insanity. Counsel quoted figures showing that while drink could get a man into trouble it did not always follow it sent him to an asylum. ' In effect what the doctors for the defence said was that the act was due to insanity, or homicidal impulse. If the jury came to the conclusion the act was the result of an intention formed some hours before, then they would be helped towards deciding whether the cause was insanity or drink, and it was submitted the question of intent must carry the greater weight. If, a few hours beforehand, he had decided he might kill the woman, the offence could not be connected with a sudden impulse. As lawyers said, “the deed relates back to the intention.” ' “A thought makes a deed, a deed a habit, and a habit a destiny,” continued the Crown Prosecutor. “You have the evidence that the marriage was un-> happy, that the woman was deformed, that there had been disagreements and grudges were forming, trouble at Lowgarth, where the wife had to go to a magistrate with an application under the Destitute Persons Act.” That trouble, he said, was settled temporarily when Townsend agreed to settle some of his .property on her if she would consent to go on living with him. Things were no better at Hamilton. The drinking went on, the quarrels and family disagreements and the grudges. Counsel reviewed the subsequent events leading up to the tragedy. They could realise, he said, that Townsend, a solitary, morose man, though freed of the irritability caused by his wife’s presence, realised as a man of 53 that his family life was broken and he had no home. He was drinking. His money was dwindling. Gradually resentment was developing in his mind until, before September 16, it was suggested, his grudges changed to an intention to kill his wife. STILL SOME REGARD FOR WIFE. At the same time he still had some regard for his wife. He intended to try to get her to make a fresh start that was his main wish according to one of the Crown medical witnesses —but if that failed he would kill her. They could not help but be impressed Uxr “A A—.

his wife to leave the Vickers on the fatal night and go with him to Jean for a settlement. But alongside this—in the background of his mind was lurking the idea of murder. What a dangerous situation was this? Here was a chronic alcoholic, his mind unstable. All that was needed was the application of a spark to set the whole idea afire. It was submitted that what was done was the result of what had gone before in the man’s mind and was the effect of drink and not insanity. In the police station, said Mr. Weston, Townsend had asked them to do what he himself had been afraid to do—to kill him by hanging him without a trial. “His story,” said Mr. Weston, “is like the life story of most people. It had a beginning and an end. But his was the history of a heavy drinker cursed with a solitary mature, bad and quarrelsome —a nature that had' shouldered him on towards the inscrutable fate of murdering his wife.” SUMMING-UP BY THE JUDGE. "You have listened with apparent attention to the case conducted for the Crown by the Crown Prosecutor,” said his Honour the Chief Justice, beginning his summing-up, “and, as characteristic of criminal trials in this country, it has been conducted with scrupulous fairness. You have listened, also, to the defence conducted by counsel for the accused, ably and with great skill and ability. I want to say that nothing more could have been said or done for the accused than has been said and done, nor could it have been said or done more ably than it has been by Mr. Moss.” It became his duty, said his Honour, to assist the jury by explaining to it the law as it applied to this type of case, to help the jurymen in coming to a decision on the facts as presented. “Your duty then is to perform the highest and most responsible duty of citizenship,” he continued, "just as responsible a duty as mine—in fact, more so, because you have to decide on the facts. The law I give you is the law that you must apply to this case according to your ability, and by my directions you are bound.” This case, he said, was different from the ordinary case a jury had to try, because in the ordinary, case the jury had only to consider a verdict of guilty or not guilty. Here, however, for reasons that would appear later. in the summing-up, they could not find a simple verdict of not guilty. “The charge you are sworn to try is that of murder,” said the Chief Justice, “and in the event of a conviction there is but one sentence this court can impose. That, however, must not concern you or me. That is a matter fixed by law.” They might think the case was not one o'f insanity, he went on, and if they thought that, and if not due to drink in the circumstances he would show, it would be the jury’s plain duty to return a verdict of guilty. In that event they would know that every attention had been paid to all considerations, and that if it turned out that Townsend was not insane but abnormal consideration was given to that. The jury was generally told that the Crown must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt before a conviction could be found for, and the court pointed out to the jury that if there were any reasonable doubt on the facts the verdict must be one of not guilty. That position did not apply here. The facts regarding the tragedy were not disputed. It was not disputed, and could not be, that the prisoner, with the knife the jury had seen, had caused the death of his' wife. That was clearly established

WHOLE DEFENCE OF INSANITY.

Indeed,' Mr. Moss’ whole defence relied on insanity and did not dispute the facts of the tragedy. It being beyond the possibility of dispute that the prisoner did cause the death of his wife, prima facie, he would be guilty of murder and the case would end there were there not the question of insanity. Insanity was a matter of defence and the onus or burden of proving it lay on Townsendi not with the Crown.

It was presumed that the crime of murder involved an intent to murder. Culpable homicide was committed (a) if the offender meant to cause the death of the person killed, or (b) if he meant to cause any bodily injury likely to cause death. A person was presumed by law to intend the consequences of his act. When a person cut the throat of another or shot someone there were all the elements of murder, but there were certain grounds that, if proved, operated as an excuse.

One was drunkenness under certain conditions. Although it had not been put to the jury by either counsel there was a possibility, very remote, that his Honour thought it his duty to mention. Murder involved intent; manslaughter did not. Culpable homicide that did not amount to murder was manslaughter according'to law. Drunkenness was no excuse for crime. The jury might, howeve'r, find that a person committed an act when he was so much under the influence of liquor as to be incapable of forming an intent, If, therefore, in this case the facts were that Townsend was at the time suffering from the effects of drink to such an extent that he was incapable of forming an intent, he could not be found guilty of murder, and it would be the duty of the jury to find hiln guilty of manslaughter. MANSLAUGHTER POSSIBILITY. His Honour said he had considered this point and thought it was his duty to put the position before the jury. However, it was equally his duty to point out that this was not the case made out cither by Dr. Walker or Dr. Adamson for the defence; nor was it the case made out by Drs. yVilliams or Jeffreys. They had said that in their opinion the case could not- be so regarded and that Townsend was capable of forming an intent. Drunkenness, however, might conceivably have had a bearing. There might be a general condition of insanity brought about by drunkenness. If so it was just like insanity brought about in any other way. That brought him to explain the law in New Zealand regarding insanity. Everyone was presumed to be sane at the time of committing an act until the contrary was proved. That was in terms of section 43 of the Crimes Act. His Honour further quoted from the Act as follows: —“No person shall be convicted of an offence by reason of an act done or omitted by him when labouring under natural imbecility or disease of the mind to such an extent as to render such person incapable of understanding the nature and quality of the act or omission, and of knowing that such act or omission was wrong. “A person labouring under specific delusions, but in other respects sane, shall not be acquitted on the ground of insanity under the provisions hereinafter contained unless the delusions caused him to believe in the existence of some state of things which, if it existed, would justify or excuse his act or omission. “Insanity before or after the time when he committed or omitted the act, and insane delusions, though only partial, may be evidence that the offender was, at the time when he committed or omitted the act, in such a condition of mind as to render him irresponsible for act or emission.” -•••

DELUSIONS DO NOT APPLY. The question whether there were delusions did not seem to apply in this case.j It was said Townsend was suffering from certain delusions. Mr. Moss had said, I quite wisely, his Honour thought, that, he did not'rely on the sub-section re-1 lating to delusions. “I don’t think he | could,” observed the judge. I What were the delusions suggested? he went on. They were: (1) That his wife was unfaithful to him; (2) that Latham had treated him badly; (3) that his wife was not exercising proper control over the daughter. Supposing these were all delusions, it was plain that none of them could justify him in forming an intent to kill his wife. However, just as drunkenness might bring about insanity, so they ought to recognise that while delusions might not justify a verdict of not guilty on the ground of insanity, they might be availed of by counsel on the general question of insanity. “The test is this,” continued his Honour. “Are you satisfied, remembering that this is a matter the defence has to prove, that they have proved to you satisfactorily that Townsend at the time of the tragedy was labouring under a disease of the mind to such an extent that he was incapable of understanding the nature of the act he was doing, or of knowing that the act was wrong?” Dr. Jeffreys had said that a person drunk was in a sense insane, continued the judge, but it did not follow that if a man were insane according to the medical point of view that he was not to be held responsible for a criminal act. INSANITY AND CULPABILITY. He ventured to say that many persons were in the mental hospitals of New Zealand who, nevertheless, could be held responsible for a criminal act. Because such persons were there in the interests of their families or the State it by no means followed that they were incapable of understanding the nature of acts they committed. Therefore, a mere abnormality that the medical mind might term insanity was no excuse. Nor was drunkenness an excuse; nor was an uncontrollable or irresistible impulse alone a sufficient excuse, as in some countries where there was such a thing as an “unwritten law.” It was, however, another matter when that impulse was part of a mental disease.

The test was whether Townsend' was at the time of the tragedy labouring under a disease of the mind to such an extent as to render him incapable of knowing the nature and quality of. his act and that it was wrong. If the jury decided he was it was a duty to bring in a verdict of not guilty on the grounds of insanity. If it were decided that he did know the quality of his act and that it was wrong then the duty, however unpleasant, was to bring in a verdict of murder, unless, contrary to the doctors’ evidence, it was decided it was manslaughter. Mr. Moss had suggested the fact that a substantial number of cartridges was taken from Townsend indicated an insane idea to commit massed murder. The jury would consider that carefully, but his Honour pointed out that Townsend had packed up his things at the boarding house; the cartridges might simply be things he put in his pockets instead of packing them; he may have had them some time. “However, you have to judge the facts and not I,” observed the Chief Justice.

SUGGESTION OF MASSED MURDER.

Then there was the suggestion that he was going out to do mass murder and that this was the act of an insane per-

son. In the first place, he did not do it. In the second, he told one of the doctors he never did go out with that intention. His intention was to do away with his wife, and then himself. So the idea of mass murders did not seem to have been formed before the tragedy, though it was an idea on the morning following. He had killed his wife but he did not do away with himself because he had not the courage. He had a number of drinks at Waitara and they probablyraised his courage. It was only then that he actively conceived the idea of massed murder, although he may have had a dim idea long before. The defence relied partly on the circumstances around the tragedy, on the evidence of Smith, and partly on medical evidence, to which there was evidence in rebuttal. TOWNSEND’S MOODINESS. Referring to Townsend’s moodiness his Honour thought the jury probably had as much knowledge of human nature as Smith. Townsend’s moods were probably those typical of the person who did little work and drank much. Unfortunately, it appeared from questions his Honour put to Dr. Walker that, as he frankly admitted, he had not taken certain matters into account when forming his conclusion that the man was insane. It was for the jury to say how much attention should be paid to the answers to those questions. His Honour dealt exhaustively with the evidence as to conversations Townsend had with several persons both before and after the event to show whether there was ground for the jury coming to the conclusion .that he had formed an intention to commit a crime and whether he knew what he had done was wrong. He referred to the conversation between the accused and his wife when she said he was not a dead man and he replied that he would fix her. On the morning following he told men at Wait-ara he had killed a woman and they understood it was his wife and he said the police would be after him and that he would swing for it. Then there was the fact that he had said to some of the men, when he asked them to drink with him, that it was the last drink they would have together. There was the question of premeditation, he went on. To some extent the question of intent was bound up with this. The first point regarding premeditation was that as far back as September, 1927, Townsend had told a solicitor acting for his wife that he would “give them all a shock one of these days.” On February 20, 1929, he told Stanton to tell Huse there was a cloud hanging over him that might burst at any time. Then Jean’ had given evidence of a threat at Hamilton to blow her mother’s brain out and, on another occasion, to kill her with a pocket-knife. Townsend had said, “It is just a matter of time.” No doubt these threats were made in drink, but supposing on any one of these occasions Townsend had acted as he did on September 16, 1930, could he have been acquitted on the grounds of insanity? BEFORE THE TRAGEDY. On September 11, having reached the end of his financial resources, he paid his' board up to the following Monday, an unusual thing. On the morning of September 15 he asked his landlord and landlady to move' his things from his room, and said they could let it. In the evening he said good-bye. What did those things indicate? They indicated some intention. It was true he told some friends he was going to swim to Sydney.

It was for the jury to say whether that meant he was under the influence Ox liquor, that it was a joke, or a polite method of evasion. That brought them to 7 o’clock on the Monday night. He went out, taking the gun and cartridges. What for? He told the doctors he went to find his wife to endeavour to arrive at a settlement; failing this, be was going to shoot her. It was not with the gun he killed her, because it was planted outside. He had a pocket knife, but not the gun. The killing was not done until after he had endeavoured to persuade his wife to go with him. She refused.

Then they had the sudden change in his demeanour in the sitting room. It was for the jury to say what importance was to be attached to that. The jury would consider everything Mr. Moss had said on the point, but was there anything extraordinary in the change of expression? If he had premeditated murder in the event of not obtaining a settlement might not this sudden facial change have been, due to his sudden realisation that his wife would not go out with him, and that time for the alternative had arisen—the alternative he contemplated on leaving the boarding house? i “That may be; I am not an alienist,” commented his Honour. “Nor are you, but there are some matters that you can look at in the cold light of common sense.” No doubt, said the judge towards the end of his summing-up, Townsend had a morose, solitary disposition. No doubt he drank heavily. No doubt he did things under the influence of liquor that he would not have done normally. No doubt he was abnormal in some ways. “Are these things not typical?”-he asked. “And might they not be said of any other morose man who drinks heavily ?

“May not the position be best put in Townsend’s owu words to Dr. Jeffreys: ‘l’m sorry. But why should a man put the blame on whisky when he knows how it affects him and that, he should passed, but the band will not be able to not touch it?’ That puts the .whole thing eloquently and simply. You, gentlemen, have heard the facts and it is for you to say whether he was sane or insane.”