THE PUKEKAWA MURDER

Wanganui Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 160811, 19 November 1920, Page 7

THE PUKEKAWA MURDER

THIRD DAY OP TRIAL,

(Per United Press Association.! AUCKLAND, Nov. 17,

The third day’s proceedings in the trial of Samuel John Thorn, charged with the murder of Sidney Seymour at Pukekawa on August 24th took' place to-day at the Supreme Court before tho Chief Justice.

William Henry Hazard, gun merchant, continuing his evidence, said Peters’ cartridges in the gun-case contained No. 6 and 7 shot. His firm had supplied that kind of cartridge to Mrs Eyre for the accused at one time. The shot found in deceased’s head! agreed with No. 7 in weight. After examining the murdered man’s room, he had concluded that the shot was fired from outside the left corner of the window in a downward direction. The firer would have to fire fr&m the left side. He did not think the gun could have been fired from any other angle.

Medical evidence was given to the effect that deceased had been killed in his sleep.

A niinber of residents of the district were then called by the Crown. Charles Vincent, farmer, of Pukekawa, said his farm was between Eyre’s place and Glen Murray. On August 24 he went to bed about 9 p.m. Soon afterwards dogs barked, and he got up to see what vas the cause. He saw and heard a horse coining towards Tuakau —that i7as from Glen Murray direction —towards Eyre’s place. It was too dusky to see whether there was a man on it. Witness went to bed, but was disturbed again a little after 12 o’clock. This time he went out, because it was unusual for the dogs to make a noise at than time of the night. He went outside the fence on the second occasion. Ho then heard a norse travelling back towards Glen Murray. He did not sec it that time. Tho animal was trotting going in, but cantered coming back.

Cross-examined, witness admitted that in the Magistrate’s Court at Pukekawa ho had stated that on the two occasions he had heard a horse and that ho saw nothing. “Witness said he saw no rider, hut he saw the beast coming along the road. Mr Singer: A beast?

Witness: It was bound to be a horse, because no other animal would come along the road at that time of jnght. Hia Honor: Do yon suggest it could have been a cow? (Laughter.) Mr Singer: It might have been a bullock, a mule, or a donkey.

John M. Stewart, cream carrier, Pukekawa, said that about 8 a.m. on August 24 be noticed fresh horse hoof prints near a post about 150 yards from Eyre’s house. He was curious, and followed them right to where the road branched off towards Glen Murray. The prints were good and different from others oji the road, and wete on the wrong side of the road both ways. The front shoe prints had certain peculiarities. The shoes in Court would make exactly the same impression, he guessed. Cross-examined by Mr Singer, witnesi said he had heard of the murder, and examined the marks because of what he had heard. He did not follow any other prints. He had never seen the shoes until to-day.

James Granville, of Glen Murray, employer of the accused, described the horses on his property and the kind of shoes they wore. Micky was the only one wearing plain shoes. On Tuesday, August 24th, accused commenced ploughing a piece of land some distance from home, going to camp there. The horse Micky was in his charge. Witness was rot continuously present. When thopolice took a statement from accused on August 25th the police party stayed the night at his house Next morning Detective-Sergeant Cummings told witness that Thorn had refused to get in the horses. Witness told Thorn to get them in, and' this was done. Sergeant Cummings then proceeded to examine the horses. Accused asked which horse they wanted, and witness said ho thought it was Dick, Detective-Ser-geant Cummings was looking at tho hoof prints' and, calling Constable Thompson, said, “I think Micky’s shoes will do ” Accused gave a start and said “0!”, and turned a bit pale. The police then singlefl Micky out and removed his shoes. Thorn came, saying .that the marks on the shoes corresponded with those on the road. Witness told accused it was a very serious thing, and he had better go to the inquest to see if anything was said about him. Accused was quite willing-to go. De-tective-Sergeant Cummings then tried Thorn’s saddle on Micky, remarking that it fitted. Witness replied that it was on Dick the previous day. There was little, if any, difference in girth between Micky and Dick. DetectiveSergeant Cummings then said there was a print of a saddle on the cover. Witness invited Thorn to look at it, but tho latter refused to do so.

To Mr Singer: Witness said that when he took delivery of the horse Micky tho animal was suffering from lampera, and had to be left on the way home for treatment. It was not true that he knocked up on his fet journey. This was a few weeks before the date of the murder. Witness denied, also, that tho horse almost knocked up when finally taken home.

At this stage the Court was adjourned.

AUCKLAND, Nov. 18. The trial of Samuel Thorn on a charge of having, on August 24 last, at Pukekawa, murdered Sidney Seymour Eyre, was continued at the Supreme Court to-day. William James Taylor, licensee of

the Tuakau Hotel, gave evidence of a conversation alleged to have taken place between him and Thorn in the presence of a reporter. Accused asked: “What do you think will happen?” Witness replied: “I am satisfied the police are bound to get you, or someone else,” or words to that effect. Thorn then said: “If they get me 1 will drag some other into it. There is someone nearer the end of the rope than they think. ’ Witness said: “1 do not know whether you are innocent or guilty, but I think you are very foolish to talk like that.” Andrew, M. Shugar said he was present when the accused, tilting back his hat, exclaimed: “By , if they get me I will drag some other into it. There is someone nearer the rope than they think they are.” Cross-examined, Shugar said that the last witness did not say to accused; “1 am satisfied the police are bound to get you or someone else.” Two witnesses were called to give evidence that after the murder Thorn made enquiries as to the wherabouts of Mrs Eyre. W. H. Hazard, recalled, said that ho had weighed an ounce of English No; 6 shot, and the shot from No. 7 Peter’s cartridge, and the number of pellets was practically the same. He had fired a Peter’s cartridge in the police barracks this morning, and he could not describe the room as having'been filled with smoke like a thick fog. Mr Singer said he thought the jury should see a shot fired.

Mr Martin said he would not object, provided the conditions were similar to those prevailing at Pukekawa on August 24 as regarding the size of the room, the' colour of the walls and the S' Aon of the window relative to the man and also relative to the position occupied by Mrs Eyre, otherwise he would strenuously object to the jury having any misconceived idea of what occurred.

His Honour pointed out that there was now three months’ difference in temperature. Again, the temperature might be different at Tuakau from that at Auckland. The experiment would require to be in a house on a dampish night. Without the same conditions he would tell the jury that any experiment would not be evidence. It would not be fair.

In answer to his Honour, witness said that the wads shown to him by tho police could not have come from airy cartridge except a Peter’s. Detective Andrew McHugh, of Auckland, stated that prior to joining the police force he was a qualified blacksmith for eight years. After the murder he searched an area inside a radius of 20 miles from Tuakau. Altogether he examined 1300 horses, of which 418 were shod. In no case did he find any of the ,animals wearing shoes of the same measurements as those produced in Court. He then gave details of tho measurements of the shoes produced. Thomas Wolfendalc, a member of the mounted police, stated that on August 25th he saw tracks of a horse near EVre’s house. The form of the shoes was quite distinct. Witness afterwards rode “Mickey” to Eyre’s house. He did the journey in two hours 40 minutes. When witness got to Eyre’s the animal showed no signs of distress, and was dry under the saddle. Detective J. H. Sweeney was the next witness called. He and Detective Sergeant Cummings had examined horse tracks behind Eyre’s property, and the shoes produced in Court fitted these tracks.

Sergeant J. T. Gowan, police officer in charge of Pukekohe district, was in charge of the police party that visited Eyre’s house early on the morning after the murder. The sergeant testified to the finding of a horse shoe print. He and Detective Sergeant Cummings measured the prints very carefully, and folowed them to a junction where a branch ran off the main road to Glen Murray. Along this road the tracks turned back, crossed the highway, and went on towards Glen Murray. Witness, with Detective Sergeant Cummings, arrived later at Granville’s place, and saw the accused, who was asleep in a whare. Detective Sergeant Cummings told him Eyre had been shot the night before by some person with a shotgun. Thorn said “Yes.’ Detective Cummings then said they had come to see if Thorn could assist inquiries. Answering questions, Thom told the detetive that he was at Eyre’s “last Sunday week.” Thorn said Sid Eyro and he did not get on too well, but he got on all right with the rest. Witness did not see a gun in the whare, but saw a gun case under the bed. Accused gave Detective Sergeant Cummings the key of the case, and the detective took the gun and 55 cartridges. Two police officers examined the gun and Detective Sergeant Cummings said: “This has been recently cleaned.” Thorn said: “I cleaned its yesterday or to-day.” The cartridges were all “Peter’s high gun” No. 6 and No. 7. Detective Sergeant Cummings handed the gun to witness, who examined it, and found both barrels clean, the left being particularly so. Witness smelt the breech of the gun and said to Detective Sergeant Cummings: “Smell the powder. ’ Detective Sergeant Cummings then asked accused when he fired the gun last, and accused said; “I may have used it since I came over here, or I may not.’ He said he had shot a ribbit with it over at Granville’s house.

Detective-Sergeant James Cummings, who was in charge of the police inquiry, described the course of investigations as described by previous witnesses. On September 2nd witness interviewed Thorn, stating that statements had been made by Mrs E'yre and her two sons. Accused asked what Mrs Eyre had said about him. He added that he would give the police all the assistance in his power. The statements were then read to him, and he made a further statement.

Witness proposed to read Mrs Eyre’s statement, and Mr Singer made a formal objection, which was noted. It was then agreed that the statement should not bo read, but handed to the jury for perusal. Accused’s statement in reply was then read.

On September 4, continued witness, ho interviewed accused again, and told him about the statement he had been reported to have made at Taukau- regarding pulling someone else in if arrested. He asked the accused to say who that was, and the latter refused. Pressed to say who it was, accused said, “No; I won’t say. No stranger did it anyway. It must have been done by someone having knowledge, and no stranger could have done it.” He added that he did not suggest Mrs Eyre or any of the family had done it. Thorn was then confronte dby Mrs Eyre, and they had a conversation, which witness noted. This was the conversation at Tuakau referred to by Mrs Eyre in evidence. Witness then read his note of conversation. This took place after the accused had refused to say who it was to whom he referred at the Tuakau hotel. At that time accused said he had heard that there were two shots fired. He also said that if two were

fired in quick succession the person concerned would have his arm grazed against the window. Before leaving, accused again said he would not say whom he meant that he would drag in if arrested. On September 11 accused was arrested and charged with the murder. He said “Right oh!”, and was taken to the Police Station at Tuakau. When advised to get a solicitor, he said, “What good could a solicitor do for me now?” Accused said further, “Don’t he too hard on me. A man doesn’t wa»t to he too callous.” The case was adjourned.